Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Children's Shoes

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimated increase in revenue would accrue from levying 15 per cent. value added tax on children's shoes.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): It is estimated that the net additional full year revenue at 1984–85 prices would be about £50 million.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Financial Secretary accept the findings of the Munro committee in 1973, which concluded that there was a causal relationship between the price of children's footwear and the incidence of foot disease? Will he accept that a short-term saving of £50 million makes no sense if it prejudices the longer-term health of the nation's feet? Therefore, will he give the House an assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not considering imposing VAT on children's footwear?

Mr. Moore: The Government have no reason to doubt the continuing validity of the conclusion reached by the Munro committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say more than the Minister of State, Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), said on 25 October, which was that we had no set views at present on how the Government might shift the burden of taxation from taxes on earnings to taxes on spending.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable worry on both sides of the House about the possibility of VAT being levied on children's shoes? Will he recognise that the present system, which does not impose VAT on shoes that help developing feet, has certainly made a contribution to the health of children's feet?

Mr. Moore: I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend. I notice that she has put her name to early-day motion 109, which has been signed by hon. Members of all parties. I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Financial Secretary tell us how many jobs would be lost in the boot and shoe industry as a result of the imposition of VAT?

Mr. Moore: The Government are aware of the concern expressed by United Kingdom manufacturers of boots and shoes. They have said that the imposition of VAT could

lead to a diminution of employment. That is the view of the manufacturers. The Government have listened to them and are aware of that view.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who, 12 years ago, discouraged the then Chancellor of the Exchequer from taxing children's shoes have had no reason to change our minds and that we accept the argument that tight shoes for children can cause deformed feet for life? However, is my hon. Friend aware that that argument did not, and does not, apply to other clothing?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend's independence of spirit is appreciated, not only by his constituents, but by the Government. I recognise the consistency with which he has expressed his views and we always take account of the views of all hon. Members on these issues.

Mr. Blair: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Britain is almost unique in Europe in having a proper fitting service for shoes, which greatly contributes to the health care of our children? Does he realise that the uncertainty is undermining confidence in the industry and whetting the appetite of foreign producers of less good footwear? If the Government are not prepared to support British industry in the interests of our children, when are they prepared to support it?

Mr. Moore: I hope that it is not inappropriate for me to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I hope that that will not create too much difficulty for him in his future career. However, I know that he will not expect me to accept the kind of nonsense with which he has started.

Public Debt

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the trend of public debt interest is higher than his forecast of March.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): "The Autumn Statement 1984" gives estimated figures for debt interest in 1984–85 and 1985–86 which are respectively about £½ billion and £1 billion above previous estimates.

Mr. Wainwright: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred not only to the autumn uprating of the current debt estimate but to the estimate for 1985–86, which is stretching a long way ahead, how does he explain his recent statement that the prospect is of further interest rate cuts? Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about interest rates to reassure British industry?

Mr. Lawson: I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's puzzlement quite simply. The increase in the estimates to which I referred is an increase over what was envisaged at the the time of the last Budget. When I say that I now see a prospect of interest rates falling, I am talking about falling from their present levels. I am glad to say that that prospect remains as a result of this Government's policies.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the national debt increases year by year because of overspending, interest charges will obviously increase? As the interest payments on the national debt are now more than £45 million per day, would it not be folly to increase our public expenditure now?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is quite right. It would be folly to increase public expenditure now, and that is


why the Government have no intention of doing so. It is a quite remarkable fact that, despite the miners' strike and the events in the United States, where interest rates have risen sharply, the level of interest rates in Britain is no higher than it was at the time of the last general election, and is set to go lower.

Privatisation

Mr. Gerald Howarth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the impact on the economy of the privatisation programme.

Mr. Moore: Privatisation helps the economy by giving companies the freedom and the challenge of the market place. This greatly benefits their customers, their employees, and the nation.

Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that British Aerospace is a fine example of the benefits of privatisation, with record sales and profits? Will he take forward with enthusiasm that programme of genuine public ownership?

Mr. Moore: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend said. British Aerospace is a classic example, because it is winning major orders against fierce international competition. My hon. Friend will know from the latest published accounts that the turnover of British Aerospace is up 62 per cent. A higher turnover produces higher profits and increased investment, and increases the number of jobs, which is something that I suspect all hon. Members want.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is it not bizarre that the Labour party, which calls for increased public ownership of wealth and assets, should at the same time refuse to support denationalisation in the form, for example, of the sale of council houses or shares in British Telecom, when that is the most effective way of giving individual members of our society a genuine stake in the national wealth?

Mr. Moore: I have difficulty in understanding what is not bizarre about the Labour party's policies. My hon. Friend will realise that the employees of industries which were once nationalised but are now in the private sector have become owners as well as earners and are committed to their success, and that that suggests that the Opposition are divorced from the real views of the majority of the electorate as expressed at the last election.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Why have the Government not taken the opportunity with British Airways and British Telecom to increase competition so that the consumer, rather than just the Treasury, benefits? Did not the Government back down when they had the opportunity of bringing about greater competition in civil aviation because the interests of the Treasury were put first?

Mr. Moore: It is quite the reverse. We are delighted to have any support for privatisation from the alliance parties, recognising that privatisation will give competition. We trust that the alliance parties will look at how new regulatory structures seek to aid that competition by helping the consumer, not the politician.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that the main privatisation sales have so far brought £1·9 billion to the Exchequer, which is £450 million less than the shares are

now worth and that it represents an opportunity cost to the Government? After all, if the Government had invested that money in the infrastructure, it would have been better used to create 100,000 new jobs.

Mr. Moore: The reality is perfectly expressed by the hon. Lady, in the sense that those companies have done much better in the private sector. Freed from the dead hand of state, the turnover of Cable and Wireless is up by 122 per cent., of Amersham by 80 per cent., of British Aerospace by 62 per cent., of Britoil by 44 per cent., and of National Freight by 14 per cent. Those successes are shared by the employees as well as by the market place. Instead of sticking to their Clause Four commitments, Opposition Members should try to discuss these issues with the employees of denationalised industries.

Income Tax

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate at what income level a family of average size would begin to pay less tax, both direct and indirect, than they would have done in 1979.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): Families with earnings above about half the average will now be paying a smaller proportion of their earnings in income tax than in 1978–79. The amount paid in indirect taxes depends, of course, on individual spending patterns.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the Minister for not answering my question. Perhaps I can try to help him. Does he agree, not with me, but with the present Foreign Secretary, who said in 1979 that the basic rate of tax plus of course national insurance contributions had the deterrent effect of a tax on earnings? — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I would not want to misrepresent the Foreign Secretary. Does the Minister agree that even a family on double the average earnings, at 1983–84 prices, is paying about £110 in national insurance contributions and income tax this year although they were paying less than £90 in 1978–79? There has been a £10 increase even in indirect taxation and only the very rich have gained.

Mr. Stewart: Allowing for inflation since 1978–79, the married man on average earnings is now paying £4 a week less than under Labour in its last year in office. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right in 1979 to point to the excessive burden of income tax and the high basic rate.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Has not the autumn statement given some leeway for tax cuts in the spring? Will the Government consider carefully the merits of raising tax thresholds yet again, as they have for the last two years? If tax thresholds are raised, that will give a greater incentive to people to work. Does my hon. Friend agree that taxes start at far too low a level?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend's remarks will have been heard by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The tax threshold has been far too low. I am glad to say that in real terms under this Government in the last five years the threshold has been increased by 16 per cent. in real terms. That is an important achievement.

Mr. Blair: Will the Minister please confirm in plain terms that, after deducting income tax and national


insurance contributions, since this Government took office people have had to earn over £18,000 a year to have less to pay and more to spend.

Mr. Stewart: The Opposition continually confuse percentages of tax paid. I thought that the Opposition believed that as earnings rose the percentage of tax paid should rise. Disposable income per head has risen by 6 per cent. under this Government. That takes into account all the tax, deductions and the cost of indirect taxes borne in prices.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I sense that the mood of the House is that we should have shorter questions and answers.

Economic Progress

Mr. Straw: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the progress of the economy in terms of national output and employment.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of the economy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lawson: Output has been rising at a rate of 2½ per cent. per annum since the trough of the recession. Employment has risen by an estimated ¼ million over the year to June and is expected to continue to rise. But had real wages grown less rapidly, employment would be rising still faster and unemployment would not now be rising at all.

Mr. Straw: Is the Chancellor aware that his answer shows a staggering complacency about the state of Britain's economy? Is he aware that in 1979 our performance on inflation and unemployment was average among the major seven OECD countries? Our performance on inflation is still average, but our performance on unemployment and manufacturing output is worse than that of any of our major competitors. When does he believe that manufacturing output will return to its 1979 level, since it is 10 per cent. behind that level now?

Mr. Lawson: There is general interest throughout the House in making comparisons with other countries. Since the election, and on the latest available figures our unemployment rose, I regret, by 3·7 per cent., but unemployment rose by 5·2 per cent. in the remainder of the Community. The number of jobs in Britain rose by 1 per cent., but there was no increase in the remainder of the Community. Britain's gross domestic product rose by 2·9 per cent., compared with only 1·5 per cent. in the remainder of the Community.

Mr. Forman: Although I welcome the encouraging sustained increase in output under this Government during recent years, does my right hon. Friend accept that if we are to create sufficient new jobs to counteract the inexorable rise in unemployment we must put greater emphasis in the forthcoming Budget on finding ways to lower industrial costs, which will facilitate that process?

Mr. Lawson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the next Budget — as was the last Budget, with the abolition of the national insurance surcharge and the reform of corporation tax and business taxation generally — must be framed to encourage the creation of new

jobs. That is of the first importance. That is why reductions in taxation, and especially direct taxation, are so important.

Mr. Dormand: When will the Chancellor stop giving credence to the myth that public borrowing in Britain is dangerously high? Britain's 3 per cent. of GDP compares with 4·5 per cent. in other industrial countries. Is it not abundantly clear that such a tight fiscal policy is the major cause of Britain having 4 million unemployed? When will the Chancellor take off his blinkers and recognise the disastrous effect of those policies on the people of Britain?

Mr. Lawson: Britain does not have 4 million unemployed, I am glad to say. The recovery that we are now seeing—[Interruption.] The facts are unpalatable to Opposition Members. The recovery began when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary very courageously made a major reduction in the borrowing requirement in the 1981 Budget.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to increase employment is to remove restriction and rigidities in the labour market and allow market forces to work? Is it not time that we did away with such bodies as wages councils and the National Dock Labour Board?

Mr. Lawson: Obviously we shall be looking seriously at the question of wages councils.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Chancellor recall that from time to time he has favoured such organisations as election press conferences and the Leicester young farmers with his estimates for unemployment during the next year? Will he now do the same for the House of Commons?

Mr. Lawson: I made it clear earlier this week—but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not paying attention — that everything that the Government are doing is designed to create maximum opportunities for new jobs. I have not made forecasts about unemployment in the past and I do not propose to do so now.

Interest Rates

Dr. Marek: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average level of real interest rates :since May 1979; and what was the average level of real interest rates during the previous five years.

Mr. Ian Stewart: There is no precise practical definition of real interest rates.

Dr. Marek: I cannot really thank the Minister for his non-answer—he could have done better. Does he accept that, because of need or policy, the Government have had a high level of interest rates since they took office? We have often heard the Chancellor say that interest rates are set to fall.
What is the difference between Britain and Germany, which, under a Conservative Government, has an economy which is generally run much better than Britain's, and whose interest rates are only half of Britain's?

Mr. Stewart: It so happens that during the 1980s real rates of interest in the United Kingdom have tended to be below those in Germany and the United States. Precise calculations are not possible, as it is necessary to make estimates of future inflation. Under the last Labour


Government the average annual rate was 15 per cent. Under the previous Consevative Administration the average decreased to 10 per cent., and it is much lower now. That is the best way in which to reduce real and nominal interest rates.

Mr. Hordern: As the level of interest rates was rather higher under the last Labour Government than it is now, is not the effect of the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), on which he is to be congratulated, to draw attention to that Labour Government's appalling record on inflation and to my right hon. Friend's rather good record in this respect?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that companies in industry and commerce would greatly prefer lower interest rates and lower inflation than higher interest rates and higher inflation under a Labour Government.

Dr. McDonald: If the Minister is unable to define real interest rates, how can he provide interesting comparisons with Germany? Is it not a fact that whatever interest rate is chosen and whatever definition of real interest rate is selected, the rate was zero or negative under the previous Labour Government and has been strongly positive under Conservative Administrations since 1979? Will the Minister accept that this has been detrimental both to house owners and manufacturing industry?

Mr. Stewart: I was asked a precise question by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), to which I gave a precise answer. Inflation was much higher under the last Labour Government than it has been under the Conservative Government. I am sure that industry and investors prefer to have lower rates of inflation and lower interest rates. Lower real rates of interest cheat savers and deny investors a proper return on their investment. If the record which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) is claiming for the Labour Government, whom she supported in the 1970s, suggests that it is better to have high rates of inflation and negative real rates of interest, I profoundly disagree with her.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement for 1984–85.

Mr. Lawson: Approximately £8½ billion.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: As we now have the lowest percentage public sector borrowing requirement in Europe and the highest level of unemployment, will the Government direct any adjustments that are made in the tax system towards reducing the cost of labour and increasing the level of employment by, for instance, reducing car tax? Will the Government consider much more sympathetically the CBI's proposals for investment in infrastructure, which would have a much more direct impact upon levels of employment?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman has asked a curious string of questions. He is wrong about the level of employment. Unemployment, although too high in the United Kingdom, is even higher in a number of other European countries. Secondly, the effect on unemployment of investment in the infrastructure would be slight even in the short term. Infrastructure projects have to be

decided on their merits—for example, whether they will earn a proper rate of return. If they will produce that return, they should go ahead. As I have said, I shall frame my next Budget firmly with a view to what, in my judgment, will offer the best prospects of lower inflation and rising employment.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we all agree that the PSBR is important, as is keeping down Government borrowing? Does he agree that there would be a danger in directing indirect taxation to energy costs, so raising energy costs to industry and stultifying the recovery that is now taking place in industry?

Mr. Lawson: I know that my hon. Friend will be pleased to be reassured that there is no question of any form of tax on energy.

Mr. John Morris: How does the Chancellor's recent statement that this has been another good year affect the more than 5,000 unemployed in my constituency, particularly those who have been unemployed for a long time?

Mr. Lawson: I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern for those who are out of work. The plain facts are that the vast majority of the people in work are enjoying record living standards, that output is at all-time record levels and that fixed investment is running at an all-time high. I wish that Opposition Members would give a balanced picture of the economy. The Government are ready to acknowledge the acute problems of high unemployment, and we make no secret of that. The Opposition, however, show no readiness to acknowledge that anything could conceivably be going right in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maples: Has the projected over-run in this year's PSBR had any effect on interest rates?

Mr. Lawson: It is fairly clear that interest rates are higher than they would otherwise have been. As my hon. Friend will be aware, interest rates went up particularly sharply in July. We have been able to regain most of the lost ground, but interest rates are still higher than they should be. I hope that, before long, they will come down further.

Mr. Terry Davis: If the Chancellor can increase this year's PSBR by £1·5 billion to fight the miners, why does he refuse to increase next year's PSBR by the same amount to provide jobs for the unemployed?

Mr. Lawson: I think that most people reckon that the cost of keping the power stations going, despite the miners' strike, is well worth incuring. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until my next Budget to discover what will be done to next year's PSBR. The Government's policy of progressively reducing the PSBR as a percentage of GDP is one which we shall continue and one by which we have secured a continuing fall in inflation and a continuing recovery.

Imports

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the likly effect on imports of any reductions in personal taxation.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): The effects will depend on assumptions about other


developments in the economy. But lower personal taxation should help to create a more vigorous and competitive economy, better able to supply the goods and services which consumers demand.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not a fact that cuts in personal taxation, which inevitably extend all the way up the range, are likely to give increased purchasing power to people who are likely to buy expensive foreign imports such as Japanese goods?

Mr. Rees: My hon.. Friend must take account of the fact that any tax cuts which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may feel able to introduce are firmly within the medium-term financial strategy, and therefore will not be inflationary in their impact. My hon. Friend will take account of the fact—I know that he is interested in these matters—that exports to Europe have not suffered, but have increased since 1979 by about 79 per cent.

Mr. Wigley: Surely the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) is right in believing that, if there is an increase in disposable income at the higher income levels, there is a real danger of that income being spent on overseas holidays and that sort of thing, thereby losing potential jobs in the economy. At the same time, a cut in public expenditure to facilitate that taxation reduction loses jobs in the economy. Surely that does not solve the unemployment problem.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that, for example, total fixed investment last year was at its highest level. This year, investment in manufacturing is likely to increase by 12 per cent. and investment in service industries is likely to increase by 8 per cent. Further increases are likely next year. That is the best possible augury of employment increases.

Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that this nation is too highly taxed? Is it not also a fact that, if we leave more money in people's pockets, they purchase more products, which leads to more jobs?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is right. According to the evidence, there is not a shortage of demand. The kind of tax cuts introduced have increased demand, with exactly the consequences outlined by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wareing: Because the tax reductions will aid mainly the richer section of the community, are not their effects likely to be an increase in unemployment, deprivation for more people in the community, and no change to imports?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate. Far more money has been devoted to raising thresholds than has ever been devoted to reducing higher rates.

Taxation

Mr. Leigh: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level and distribution of taxation.

Mr. Moore: The current burden of taxation is still too high. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to reduce it.

Mr. Leigh: Will not the estimated £1·5 billion of tax cuts portended by the autumn statement be a much more effective way of creating jobs than the estimated extra £4 billion which would have had to be taken from the job

creating private tax-paying sector if the rates of tax inherited from the Labour Government had remained unchanged.

Mr. Moore: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister accept that the Tory party philosophy from 1979 onwards has been to try to encourage the entrepreneur, through lower taxes at the higher levels, to provide jobs? Does he accept that this has failed, and that it has failed no more dismally than in the City where Johnson Matthey, the gold bullion dealers, were unable to sustain their reserves and have been bailed out by the Government to the tune of £75 million? Does that not prove that the whole of the Tory party philosophy—to support the entrepreneurs, and market forces—has failed miserably?

Mr. Moore: No, Sir. That is inaccurate. The Government were not involved in the sense that the Bank of England was involved. To the extent that the Government's tax policies have sought to reduce the burden on employers, which I gather was wanted by both sides of the House, the Government first had to reduce the £4 billion-plus increase in employer taxation which occurred between 1974 and 1979 through NIC and NIS, which has now already been reduced by £3 billion and which I should have thought was an added incentive to job creation.

Community Budget

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress made in reforming the structure of the Common Market budget; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The Fontainebleau agreement represented a significant achievement and good progress has been made on the detailed provisions for implementation.

Mr. Taylor: Why does my hon. Friend think it necessary to increase the Common Market's public spending by over £3 billion a year in real terms? Does he appreciate that it makes it rather more difficult for Back Benchers to explain to their constituents why it is necessary to have real cuts in the provision for housing, student grants and foreign aid if we are to pour more money into the Common Market, which is spending over £100 million every week on dumping, storing or destroying surplus food?

Mr. Stewart: I do not expect our contribution to the European Community over the next few years, on average, to be greater than it has been in the recent past. The important factor for the United Kingdom in any agreement to increase the amount of resources available to the Community is that we shall have in place a system of abatement which keeps our contribution below 1 per cent. of VAT own resources, while the level of contribution of all other member states will be above that figure.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we cannot obtain a satisfactory budgetary mechanism to control expenditure we shall be unable to agree to an increase in Community resources?

Mr. Stewart: The Economic and Finance Ministers in council on Monday of this week agreed a common position on budgetary discipline which meets the British Government's objectives.

Investment

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the current level of manufacturing investment.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the level of investment in the economy.

Mr. Lawson: Yes. Total fixed investment this year is expected to be an all-time record. In the first half of 1984 manufacturing investment was up 15 per cent. on a year earlier.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that should lead to extra and more secure jobs in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. It is of vital importance that we have profitable investment for the future development of the economy. That is why I am particularly glad that all the indications are that there will be a further good year for fixed industrial investment in 1985.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I accept my right hon. Friend's encouraging figures, but is he not aware that there is widespread concern in the construction industry that the level of investment is not affecting it in the same way as the rest of the economy?

Mr. Lawson: I am aware of the concern in the construction industry. I am also aware that what the construction industry wants to see above all is lower interest rates because, of all industries, it is perhaps the most interest-rate sensitive. That is why the Government's policy of creating the conditions in which interest rates can come down still further is of such importance. The recent rise in the mortgage rate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fall."]—is an indicator most welcome to the whole House, and not least to the construction industry.

Dr. Bray: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that manufacturing investment in the first half of 1984 was still 29 per cent. below the 1979 level?

Mr. Lawson: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman, unlike his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), gets his statistics right. That is absolutely correct, but the fact of the matter is that total fixed investment in the economy this year is at an all-time high.

Mr. Evans: Will the Chancellor confirm that, notwithstanding the level of investment in manufacturing industry, the Treasury confidently expects employment in the manufacturing sector to fall? Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, while we have 3,250,000 benefit claimants, there are over 4 million unemployed, many of whom used to work in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Lawson: On the contrary, manufacturing investment is on a clearly rising trend. The latest figures for manufacturing employment show that it, too, now appears to have stabilised. The House will be aware that employment in manufacturing has been rising steadily since the middle 1960s.

Interest Rates

Mr. Hirst: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of interest rates.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Interest rates remain on a downward trend.

Mr. Hirst: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. While welcoming the recent fall in interest rates, may I ask him whether he agrees that interest rates in Britain and elsewhere in the world would be lower were it not for the colossal budget deficit in the United States? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the rapid reversal of interest rates since July's increase confirms that the Government were right to stick to their strategy?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend that a reduction in the budget deficit in the United States would be welcome, particularly because it would help to ease the burden on interest rates around the world, especially in Third world countries. A 1 per cent. cut in interest rates would lead to a reduction of nearly $2 billion in interest payments for non-oil developing countries. I welcome the reduction since July, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor predicted, contrary to the Leader of the Opposition's views at the time, which were that the rate rise was a disaster of immense proportions. If that three-month move in interest rates was a disaster of immense proportions, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have very much to complain about.

Job Creation

Mr. Eggar: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the economic recovery is creating new jobs.

Mr. Lawson: The number of people in work is estimated to have risen by about ¼ million in the year to June 1984 and I expect it to continue rising in 1985.

Mr. Eggar: Given the expected growth rate and the increase in the number of people of working age, does my right hon. Friend think it likely that unemployment will fall in the course of this Parliament, and what additional measures does he intend to take to ensure that it does?

Mr. Lawson: As I have said many times, the Government's economic policy is designed to create conditions which will allow more new jobs to emerge. Governments do not directly create jobs. Business and industry create jobs. Our task is to create a climate in which they can create the new jobs that are needed, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Douglas: Few of us would grudge the Chancellor any crumb of comfort in relation to the economy, but as he takes that credit against a background of established regional policy, especially in relation to regional development grants, why do the Government wish to interfere with a policy that is bringing even a microscopic amount of success?

Mr. Lawson: The new regional development grant policy to be announced later this month will, among other things, be more job-related than the existing system.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to the extent that the miners' strike has retarded economic recovery this year, Arthur Scargill has been destroying other workers' jobs?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is quite right. Mr. Scargill has destroyed jobs in a number of industries, both directly and indirectly, by causing interest rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. He is also threatening the whole future of the coal industry, so the sooner the strike is over. the better.

Mr. Hattersley: The Chancellor has refused to respond to invitations from both sides to estimate unemployment levels during this Parliament. Will he now deny the generally held view that, with present policies, there will be no significant fall in unemployment during this Parliament?

Mr. Lawson: I do not intend to make any assertion about unemployment in the lifetime of this Parliament. I recall that when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was a Minister he, too, studiously refrained from making forecasts about unemployment in the lifetime of a Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend share the pride of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) in the breed of men who man our pits? As it now appears that the House, the nation and a growing number of miners have had enough of the dispute in the coalfields, will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to heal the wounds caused by eight months of bitterness, violence and Scargillism?

The Prime Minister: I welcome the condemnations of violence in the past few days, but I regret that they are not universal. When the strike ends—and I hope that it will end soon—we shall have to do as much as we possibly can to build on moderate, responsible, reasonable and constructive trade unionism.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that she will be meeting the wishes of both sides of the House if she asks the Cabinet to reconsider the entire Foreign Office Vote—for overseas aid, representation, the overseas news service and the British Council, all of which are so important for our influence overseas—and comes back to the House with a new statement and fresh proposals?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise, when one has considered and finalised all the PESC figures it is highly unlikely that any one of them can be reopened. Indeed, I must really say that they cannot be reopened. Having seen the autumn statement, however, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that only two Departments have precisely the figure for the coming year which they knew they would have from the last White Paper. One is the Foreign Office. The other is the Ministry of Defence. If the right hon.

Gentleman will contain his impatience a little longer, it is possible that there may be a debate on this next week, when the matter can be discussed more fully.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Wigley: asked the Prime Minister what steps she proposes taking to help alleviate the social and economic consequences of the coal mining strike.

The Prime Minister: The Government have already provided the financial support so that the National Coal Board is able to offer the miners a good wage increase, a guarantee that any miner who wishes to continue in the industry will be able to do so, an investment programme that will enable the industry to improve its productivity and increase its markets, and the creation of a new enterprise company to bring new businesses to mining communities.
Two of the three unions in the coal industry as well as one third of the members of the National Union of Mineworkers have already accepted the National Coal Board's offer. Since the beginning of last week more than 6,500 miners have returned to work. I hope that those remaining on strike will follow their example.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the great solidarity shown in Wales with the coal miners arises from people's fears that communities will be wiped off the face of the map if mines close in those communities? Is she further aware that their experience so far of the Government's efforts to bring jobs to valley communities in south Wales gives people no great confidence? Trying to starve miners back to work will not solve the basic problems that caused the strike, but will only add to the bitterness. When will the Government cease the abdication of their responsibilities and start to bring harmony instead of discord?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that uneconomic pits have had to close for a very long time. That was right, as it is the duty of the National Coal Board to run the industry efficiently and to develop it efficiently. It was always understood that closures of uneconomic pits were covered in the colliery review procedure.
There are some miners at work in pits in Wales, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and I hope that the numbers will increase, because I believe that many, many people within the industry, as well as my hon. Friends, want the situation to get back to normal as soon as possible. They want to earn good money and see the necessary decisions made. We must then work very hard on the enterprise company to try to bring new work to the mining communities.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the GLC proposals for banning heavy lorries have far-reaching and damaging effects on small businesses—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) has failed to notice that this is a specific question about the coal mining industry.

Mr. Kinnock: In view of her record, the Prime Minister's answer to her hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) will be regarded both inside and outside the House as complete humbug. If the right hon. Lady genuinely wants to see a speedy end to the


dispute and subsequent harmony in the coalfields and elsewhere, will she intervene now to ensure that the cutback in production of 4 million tonnes is withdrawn, as reality has made it redundant, and also to ensure that the colliery review procedure is fully restored in line with "Plan for Coal"?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any lessons on humbug. What he has said from that Dispatch Box shows that he is a self-appointed expert on the subject. At the beginning of the strike he spoke about a ballot, but we then heard virtually nothing about that until a few days ago. It took a highly distinguished trade unionist to condemn violence at a mass meeting of the National Union of Mineworkers before the right hon. Gentleman echoed the sentiments from a safe distance. He did not have the guts to go and do it himself. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the National Coal Board has always honoured the colliery review procedure. I do not know why he continually asks that question. He is well aware that the settlement reached between the NCB and NACODS was an excellent one. It is on the table, and I hope that it will be picked up by those miners who are still on strike.

Mr. Kinnock: Once again in this dispute the right hon. Lady is dodging into incidentals. On the question of meetings, will she meet the leadership of the NUM to explain—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman will not."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a question of great importance to the House and, I think, to the country too.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Lady meet the leadership of the miners' trade union to explain how, after eight months, during which she has allowed the cost of the dispute to increase to £3,000 million, she can sustain the idea that the hit list should stay and that no other changes should be made? How can she still tell the country that she wants a peaceful end to the dispute?

The Prime Minister: I urge the right hon. Gentleman to examine the NACODS' settlement, where he will find the answer. He knows full well that all the five named pits will go through the colliery review procedure, as enhanced by the NACODS' settlement. It is for the National Coal Board and those who are on strike to come to a settlement, as the board did with NACODS. Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the miners to return to work?

Sir Anthony Grant: Despite the excellent financial arrangements that are properly being made for the miners by the NCB, does my right hon. Friend recognise the enormous courage that is required to return to work in the face of appalling intimidation—something that is alien to this country? Will she especially say a word of praise for the fact that the lead in returning to work has been given by Derbyshire and Bolsover?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course, Nottinghamshire has had people back at work for some time. The return to work in Derbyshire and Bolsover has been excellent. I join my hon. Friend in admiring the bravery of those who have crossed violent picket lines to return to work. Many miners would have returned to work but for the fact that, in many places, the strike is being maintained by violence. I hope that they, too, will accept the invitation to return to work.

Dr. Owen: Are not the squeaks of the Leader of the Labour party and other Labour leaders in recent days, as they seek to distance themselves from Arthur Scargill, reminiscent of the squeaks of rats leaving the sinking ship? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Such a response only takes time from other hon. Members.

Dr. Owen: Far from taking lessons from the Artful Dodger, will the Prime Minister make it clear that there will be no question of reopening negotiations on the NACODS' settlement?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the National Coal Board can move no further.

Mr. Concannon: My views on violence and intimidation have been on the record for a long time. In her Guildhall speech earlier this week the Prime Minister implied that the miners who had been working during the strike, and those who had returned to work, agreed with her, her Government's policies or with Mr. MacGregor. I assure her that they do not. The argument in Nottinghamshire—it is the only area for which I can speak — is a constitutional one: not one that implies recognition of her policies or those of the NCB.

The Prime Minister: I made no such assertion. Many of the miners who returned to work did so because they believe, rightly, that they are standing up for democracy. Secondly, they are showing loyalty to the industry and ensuring that the industry's customers obtain security of supply. Thirdly, they are doing what most of us wish to do—earning an honest living to keep their families.

Engagements

Mr. Marland: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the movement back to work in the car factories and the mines shows how dangerously out of touch extreme Left-wing trade union members are with their members? Does she further agree that, far from tightening the noose around the nation's neck, as the extreme Left wingers intend, they are tightening it around their own necks, as Mr. Norman Willis discovered to his discomfiture?

The Prime Minister: I was delighted that there was such a forthright condemnation of violence by the General-Secretary of the TUC. I agree that if industries go on strike they will lose customers and jobs. That is the weakness of the Opposition's case, when they talk about unemployment, but support every strike that destroys existing jobs.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Prime Minister now aware that she misled the House on Tuesday and that the pay-outs from the Secretary of State for Transport for those whom he sacked from the London Transport board were the


responsibility of the Secretary of State, and not of the GLC? Is she further aware that the proposed 6,000 redundancies on London Regional Transport will cost the taxpayers £36 million? How will that assist travellers in London?

The Prime Minister: The size of the compensation is related to the length of the remaining term of office. The

GLC appointed these members for five years, when it already knew that its control of London Transport would shortly be coming to an end. That was thoroughly irresponsible, but compensation is related to that period, and had the size of the compensation been anything less my right hon. Friend could have been taken to court to give proper compensation.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Second reading of the Films Bill. Motions on the Gas Catalytic Heaters Regulations and on the Legal Aid and Advice Orders for England and Wales, and for Scotland.
TUESDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the New Towns and Urban Development Corporation Bill. Remaining stages of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill. Motions on the Social Security Orders on contributions, re-rating and Treasury supplement.
THURSDAY 22 NOVEMBER — Opposition day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on public expenditure on overseas aid, on a motion in the name of the leader of the Liberal party. Remaining stages of the Friendly Societies Bill.
FRIDAY 23 NOVEMBER—A debate on the report of the Warnock committee on human fertilisation and embryology, Cmnd. 9314, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 26 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I remind him of his reply to me last week, in which he assured me and the House that the debates on Monday and Tuesday of this week on the Queen's Speech would not supersede the usual full day's debate on the Chancellor's autumn statement. Can he confirm not only that we shall have that debate, but that we shall have it before the end of the month, as I asked last week? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall have, in Government time — this is a Government responsibility—a debate on "The Rate Limitation Report 1984", a copy of which was laid before the House as long ago as last July?

Mr. Biffen: I am happy to confirm the intention to have a debate upon the autumn statement. I note the right hon. Gentleman's preferred timing and I am sympathetic to his request, but perhaps we should consider this further through the usual channels.
I note also the right hon. Gentleman's concern that there should be a debate on the rate limitation report. This can be seen in the context of the rate support grant, but we can talk about timing through the usual channels.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: Can my right hon. Friend explain the indecent haste for the Civil Aviation Bill? It was printed on Friday, and apparently it is to have its Second Reading next Wednesday. Can he explain to some of us who are rather suspicious about the motives of the Bill why it is being pushed through in this rushed way? Many of us feel that it will be a boost for Stansted and against the provincial airports. If it is true that the report on Stansted is to be announced on Thursday, why are we having the Second Reading debate on the Bill on Wednesday?

Mr. Biffen: I am anxious to assure my hon. Friend that the Civil Aviation Bill stands in its own right and is quite unconnected with the wider issue of Stansted, which will be the subject of an inspector's report and a Government comment on that which in due course will be considered by the House. I hope that when the time comes for Wednesday's Second Reading debate my hon. Friend will have a chance to take part and have his fears assuaged.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On next Thursday's business, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Secretary gives a precise and unambiguous statement of the implications of the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for overseas aid and other related aspects of the Foreign Office budget? Will any statement be informed by some further Cabinet discussion before then?

Mr. Biffen: All Foreign Office statements are precise and unambiguous, and I have no doubt that next Thursday will provide no exception to that rule. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I shall make certain that his remarks are referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern in all parts of the House about the decision to discuss the Warnock report on a Friday, when most right hon. and hon. Members are performing their duties in their constituencies? Will he consider rearranging the date for this debate, which is a very important one for all right hon. and hon. Members?

Mr. Biffen: It will be a sad day for Parliament when Fridays are so devalued that this kind of topic cannot be debated on a Friday. If it is of the importance that my hon. Friend suggests—and I believe that it is—right hon. and hon. Members will make it their duty to be here.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Leader of the House take note that in respect of Tuesday's proposed business there are a great many detailed and difficult matters to be considered during the Committee stage of the Bill and that it will also be necessary to have a Third Reading debate, even if the Government have not seen fit to make amendments to the Bill in Committee?

Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind those ominous words. If we cannot make the necessary progress, we shall have to consider additional time.

Mr. Anthony Steen: In my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), he said that there was no connection between the Stansted report and the Civil Aviation Bill. Will he explain, therefore, why he is proceeding with such indecent haste? In July, the Civil Aviation Authority produced a 68-page report on civil aviation. The Government responded to that on 5 October with their White Paper. There has been no debate on the White Paper. Within three days of the opening of Parliament, the Civil Aviation Bill had its First Reading, and seven days later it is to have its Second Reading. What is my right hon. Friend up to?

Mr. Biffen: To the rather tedious business of announcing next week's business, which is of an unexceptional character, and of having a Bill presented which has observed all the normal courtesies related to its


timing, and to try to persuade my hon. Friend that there is nothing sinister about it. It provides an opportunity for a reasonable and constructive debate on Wednesday, which I hope will be the case.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie)? It is not a matter of debasing debates on Fridays. The difficulty is that many of us have already taken on commitments for that day. If such an important debate was of concern to the Government, it would not be arranged for a Friday. Will the right hon. Gentleman think again?

Mr. Biffen: We all know from personal experience that politics is a balancing of priorities. It is an important occasion, of course, and it is on a Friday. If it is that important to right hon. and hon. Members, I believe that they can be here for it.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is unlikely to be a subject of greater importance to future generations that will be debated in the House than the Warnock report? We are grateful to him for the speed with which he has arranged a debate, and there is a strong case for an early debate, but, if many hon. Members make sacrifices and stay here on Friday, will my right hon. Friend ensure that time will be given to us to speak on that day?

Mr. Biffen: I certainly note my hon. Friend's request, which is rather different from the previous request on this matter, and I shall leave it there.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to early-day motion 94, which has been signed by no fewer than 118 right hon. and hon. Members, about the Dreadnought Seamen's hospital in my constituency?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government not to renege on the undertaking given on 10th June 1981 by the then Minister of Health that the future of the Dreadnought Seamen's Hospital in Greenwich is secure; notes the fact that the Report by Price Waterhouse this year concluded that no evidence had been produced to suggest that there would be any financial savings if the facility for seamen were to be moved to St. Thomas's Hospital; accepts that many redundancies would result from the suggested move and the traditions and special skills of the hospital staff would be lost; and accordingly calls on the Secretary of State to terminate procedures to close the hospital.]
In case he believes that that is merely a little local difficulty, may I point out that it is both a national and an international institution? In view of that, does he believe that time should be made available to debate this important matter in the House?

Mr. Biffen: I immediately acknowledge the importance that the hon. Gentleman adjudicates to the early-day motion and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the point that he makes.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when the Stansted report is published it will be debated in the House and that a decision whether to proceed on its recommendations will be taken by a vote?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises much wider issues than next week's business. I am sensitive to the representations being made on that topic and perhaps on this occasion I shall leave it at that.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: In view of the plight of the research councils, and the moratorium on the Government's information technology programme and its bearing on Britain's industrial future, will the right hon. Gentleman find an early opportunity for a debate on scientific research in Britain?

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry that I cannot offer that prospect, but I realise the importance of the topic and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's point is referred to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to whom it is relevant.

Mr. Fred Silvester: Would it not be a good idea to advance the debate on the Warnock report to Wednesday in order to kill two birds with one stone? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is somewhat naive for him to say that the Civil Aviation Bill debate is unrelated to the Stansted matter? With the best will in the world, our suspicions are bound to be aroused. Why cannot he postpone the Civil Aviation Bill?

Mr. Biffen: The timing of the debate on Wednesday is appropriate. If I were to change it with Friday's debate on the Warnock report, I certainly would be in the hottest of hot water. I cannot now argue the merits of the legislation. That is what Wednesday's debate will be about. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the legislation stands apart from the substantive decisions that will be taken on Stansted.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In view of the uncertainty that is felt in Wales, and probably elsewhere, about industrial investment by those contemplating investing in industry, will the Leader of the House give time for a statement next week to clarify the Government's intentions on regional policy?

Mr. Biffen: I have announced next week's business and it does not cover the topic referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but I am conscious of the significance, particularly in his part of Wales, of this issue. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry to the point that he makes.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend realise that most of us expect that the Foreign Secretary will be able to give an unequivocal assurance next week that there will be no candle-end economies to mar our record on overseas aid or to interfere with the activities of either the British Council or the overseas service of the BBC? Will he accept that many of us believe that some of the money that seems to have been put aside for Stansted could be more profitably used in that way?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has kindly given me a trailer of the speech that he would make on Thursday should he be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. Just in case he is not, I shall make sure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House accept that we are somewhat surprised at his naive belief that Foreign Office statements are accurate? Will he persuade a Foreign Office spokesman to


come to the House and tell us exactly what the Government's attitude is towards the United Nations convention on the law of the sea? We seem to be lagging behind other nations and following on the trail of the United States. Time is short for us to get in line with other nations on that issue.

Mr. Biffen: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a strong feeling throughout the House and the country this week about the announcement that the green pound was to be abolished? Many people felt that there was a psychological devaluation of our currency and that the elderly would be placed at a disadvantage with the new coins. Will my right hon. Friend please do the House the courtesy of giving some time for a debate on the matter, because we are talking about our pound note, which is very important to the nation?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that this topic excites a good deal of popular interest, but I suggest that it is an ideal subject for an Adjournment debate. I wish my hon. Friend well in the pursuit of that.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will there be an opportunity soon for a debate on the urgent need for reform of the way in which suspected shoplifters are arrested and charged, having regard to today's remarkable victory of Mrs. Maureen Steinberg, who was awarded £1,500 in the High Court for the way in which she was treated by an Oxford street store? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is particularly important at this time of the year that traders and honest shoppers should be warned about the risks?

Mr. Biffen: I genuinely admire the skill with which the hon. and learned Gentleman develops his case and the way that he evangelises, but I do not believe that I can reasonably hold out the prospect of a debate in Government time. However, I am certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman will enjoy himself just as much on an Adjournment debate.

Mr. John Stokes: In spite of the remarks of some bishops and higher clergy at yesterday's meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government still remain opposed to the disestablishment of the Church of England and that the matter will not be discussed next week?

Mr. Biffen: Well, if they are opposed, they are not letting us know next week.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the Leader of the House make room in next week's business for the Secretary of State for Defence to tell about his intentions as regards the NATO meeting in Brussels on 3 December on follow-on force attack, a subject about which there has been considerable dissembling by the Government, but on which I have not had satisfactory answers to a series of questions? The defence correspondents tell us that it is the first substantial change in NATO policy for 20 years.

Surely we should have a proper, full and frank discussion of the subject on the Floor of the House and in the Select Committee on Defence.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Lady has already made an eloquent contribution to the subject in an Adjournment debate. I cannot promise any helpful answer in respect of the business published for next week, but I will draw her arguments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Derek Conway: Bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend has ably represented a beautiful but distant part of the United Kingdom in north Shropshire for more than 23 years, will he accept from colleagues who represent constituencies that are a good way from the House that having a debate on a subject as important as the Warnock report on a Friday is unacceptable and offensive to those who need Fridays to remain in contact with their constituencies, despite what London-based Members may say?

Mr. Biffen: The records will show that I have managed to eke out a political existence with Shropshire as a parliamentary base and attendance at the House on Fridays without obvious detriment to my existence. The House would have to consider seriously any circumstance that blocked off Fridays for merely less important or trivial business. It is simply not an option that is available to us if we want to make the most of the opportunities that this House provides.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be making a statement about the bailing out of the Johnson Matthey bank? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor initially said in letters sent to me that the amount of money required by the Bank of England would be very small? However, it has now emerged that the Bank of England—the taxpayers' bank — is committed to up to £75 million. Is not it ironic that this Government, who talk about letting lame ducks go to the wall and who have allowed manufacturing industry throughout the country to be smashed, should be prepared to bail out people as soon as they see their friends in trouble or their casino economy running into flak without even making a statement from the Dispatch Box? Is it not time that they were allowed to be questioned in the House?

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not found today's Treasury questions sufficiently to his liking, but his difficulties have been—

Mr. Skinner: The Chancellor did not reply.

Mr. Biffen: That is a hazard in this world. However convincing ministerial replies may be, they never altogether answer the incorrigible sceptics. However, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Gentleman's discontent, just in case he has overlooked it.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Civil Aviation Bill does anything to control air traffic movements at Heathrow it will be greatly welcomed by my constituents, along with the fact that it is being debated next Wednesday?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to be drawn into the controversy, because I have


rather more than enough problems anyway. However, I am sure that it is helpful to have the debate earlier rather than later.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Should not there be an early and urgent debate on the very dangerous situation in central America, where American forces are clearly prepared to invade Nicaragua, to violate that country's independence and to destroy the social progress made? As the British Government have been the most slavish followers of Reaganite policies in central America, should not they be forced to debate in public why they consider it reasonable for the Americans to continue military aggression against the people of Nicaragua?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman deploys his case with fervour, but I am not sure to what extent it is reflected by Opposition Members. I realise that my answer is disappointing, but no provision has been made next week for such a debate, and I cannot see that a debate is likely to take place thereafter. However, it is certainly an appropriate subject for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Wednesday is not a day too soon for the Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill and that many of us would have preferred the Second Reading to be on Monday so that we could bring nearer the day when the Government implement their clear and definite promise to limit the number of flights through Heathrow? As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has said, that implementation will be warmly welcomed by millions of people living on the west side of London.

Mr. Biffen: I wish to say nothing that will incite further the mild civil disorder that seems to have broken out behind me. I say only that I believe that next week's business is an admirably judged programme, given the wicked nature of this world.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: May I draw the right lion. Gentleman's attention to an early-day motion that was tabled last Session on the subject of loan sharks? Given how elusive Government Departments are about accepting responsibility for that despicable trade, in which about 600,000 per cent. has been charged to poor, mainly unemployed people living on council house estates, will he give the House the opportunity of debating the issue so that we can identify whose responsibility it is to deal with it?

Mr. Biffen: I can offer no prospect of an early debate, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, as I think that the matter falls within that Department's responsibilities.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend show the respect and understanding that we know he has for the starving people of the Third world by ensuring that there will be a decent interval between Thursday's debate on foreign aid and the motion that the Government must bring forward shortly to provide an extra £200 million to cover the Common Market's wild overspending this year on creating and destroying food surpluses?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that that is the type of sentiment that always rests with me.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Remembering the fanfare of trumpets that followed the announcement at Brighton that the Conservative party had discovered a policy to deal with drug abuse and the absence of any mention of such a policy in the Queen's Speech, are we not entitled to a full statement in the House on the Government's policy?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw that suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend share a deep concern about the threat that drug abuse represents.

Mr. Tony Favell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has been rumoured for some time that the Stansted report is sitting in the Department of Transport? Is he further aware that people in the north-west regard with the greatest suspicion the debate on the Civil Aviation Bill being held on Wednesday rather than a debate on the Stansted report, which is of enormous importance to the north-west's prosperity?

Mr. Biffen: If the report is sitting in the Department of Transport, it is great news to me. I simply do not believe it.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week to explain whether the Government stand by their figures in the summer months when they claimed that 60,000 miners were working in the coalfields? If the National Coal Board figures for the last few days are correct and 6,500 miners have gone back to work, 'why does the board now admit that only 57,000 miners are working? If we cannot have a statement, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for someone in the Government to take some maths lessons?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate on that topic on Monday. He will receive all his answers then and retire defeated from the field.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call all those hon. Members who have been standing.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend take note that Londoners are concerned about reports that the GLC is establishing a burial fund to continue to fight for its retention after its abolition? Since large sums of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money are involved, will he arrange for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make an early statement to the House on this important matter?

Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties. I shall certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friend can rest reasonably assured that we shall have plenty of debating time in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Yesterday's debate was on further education, not higher education. Is it possible to have an early debate on the increase in parental contribution, particularly since many married women in work and with adult offspring in higher education will discover that they are paying an effective taxation rate of 64 or 74 per cent. which will allow them


merely one quarter of their earnings at the top of the scale? Will my right hon. Friend also put in the Library detail of the agreement for the financial mechanism within Europe?

Mr. Biffen: I shall consider my hon. Friend's second suggestion. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate, but I shall ensure that his remarks are transmitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: In view of the increasing number of prosecutions for Sunday trading, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on Sunday trading so that we may guage the feelings of the House?

Mr. Biffen: The ballot has just been taken for private Members' motions and it is just possible that one successful hon. Member will take up that subject in a Bill.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that terrorism throughout the western world and in this country has reached alarming proportions? Short of protection and detection, western Governments seem to be short of ideas on how to combat it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the subject is now so serious that we should debate it?

Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge the importance of the topic and the desirability of its being debated in the House. It is a subject particularly suited to the initiative of a private Member using the Adjournment mechanism.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when we reached question No. 8 the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was not in his place. If the question had been taken, a serious attack on the Government would have resulted. Will you try to find out whether the Treasury Bench encouraged the hon. Gentleman not to be here when we reached that question? After the Dewhurst affair, I would not trust the Treasury Bench as far as I could kick it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Although the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was not present—which is not a matter for me — we reached question No. 17, which was similar to question No. 8. Therefore, I do not think that the point of order is valid.
The question of hon. Members not being present during Question Time was raised yesterday. If hon. Members are kind enough to let me know that they cannot be present, I do not call their names.

Mr. John Browne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you and to the whole House for not being in the Chamber when my question was called. The annunciator showed question No. 5, but when I came to the Chamber question No. 8 had already passed. It was entirely my fault, and I apologise.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give the House some guidance on procedure when hon. Members, for various reasons, cannot attend Question Time? Would it not be helpful to the House if in such circumstances hon. Members could entrust other hon. Members to ask their questions? What is the proper forum in which to raise that suggestion?

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be the Procedure Committee, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks through his suggestion he will realise it would be rather bad luck for those lower on the Order Paper.

Right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport

Mr. Robert Litherland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance on the status of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)? I believe that you have suggested that he is a Back Bencher. Therefore, I wonder why he receives preferential treatment, especially during Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the answer is common knowledge and that the hon. Gentleman did not need to make the point. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is a Back Bencher. The Front Benches stop at the Gangway. However, the right hon. Gentleman is the leader of the Social Democratic party and also a Privy Councillor.

BILL PRESENTED

SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr. Secretary Fowler, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, Mr. Tony Newton and Mr. Ray Whitney, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to occupational pensions, social security and statutory sick pay; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 10.]

Orders of the Day — Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Eagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and his right hon. and hon. Friends.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House has before it today a Bill designed to strengthen the existing safeguards against personation—that is, voting as some other person—at elections held in Northern Ireland. The problem of electoral abuse in Northern Ireland, and personation in particular, is not new. It has long been practised. Indeed, it has been the subject of many cheerful jokes. But there comes a time when the joking has to stop. In the Government's view, the scale of the problem has changed so dramatically in recent years as to amount to a threat to the integrity of the electoral system. That is why we ask the House to act.
The Bill is designed to underpin the fundamental principle, long established in the United Kingdom, that it is for each voter to cast his or her vote in the way he or she wishes. Successive reform Bills in the present and last centuries have culminated in the arrangements that we now have and that are generally accepted as essential in a free society. Vote stealing has always been wrong. It is not only an offence against the person whose vote is stolen, but against basic democratic principles. In a democracy, honest disagreement between citizens is resolved by honest voting.
Let me give the House some of the background. Following allegations of a significant increase in electoral abuse, notably personation, at the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in October 1982, steps available within the law as it stands were taken to diminish the scope for abuse at the parliamentary general election in June 1983. For example, particular attention was devoted to ensuring that the election rules were administered uniformly. Careful thought was given to the deployment of police and the numbers and siting of polling stations. The parties were encouraged to urge their candidates in Northern Ireland to challenge suspected personators. Challenging was a good deal more determined in June 1983 than at the Assembly election in 1982—as shown by the significant increase in arrests for personation compared with the Assembly election. It was clear that a more vigorous approach to challenging had been adopted.
It is, in practice, very difficult to prove personation under the present law. No inquiry as to the right of any person to vote, other than the statutory questions, may be asked. In the face of highly co-ordinated efforts to personate, it was not possible to prevent massive personation at last year's general election.
It might be useful to add a word about the statutory questions. Right hon. and hon. Members may know that the statutory questions are very limited. They are prescribed in rule 35 of the parliamentary elections rules in the first schedule to the Representation of the People Act as follows:


(i) Are you the person registered in the register of parliamentary electors for this election?
Then the entry in the register is read.
(ii) Have you already voted, here or elsewhere, at this by-election [general election], otherwise than as proxy for some other person?
Those are the statutory questions. No inquiry as to the right of any person to vote, other than the above questions, may be made. The voter must not be asked, for example, to spell his name. Nor may a voter be asked if he has been bribed or whether he has done anything which, if he does vote, will render him liable to a prosecution.
The Government have concluded that a Bill is necessary, and that this Bill represents the best way forward. The United Kingdom electoral system is rightly designed to make voting as easy as possible. It was not designed to withstand a campaign of concerted electoral abuse, especially when the competing candidates and their agents do not always make full use of the present electoral law, not least because of intimidation. Various techniques, few of them original, have been used to abuse the democratic process — and in particular personation, involving voting in person or by proxy as some other person. It can range from polling on behalf of someone unable or unwilling to turn up at the polling station, to using the vote of a person who is known not to be going
to vote, to outright stealing of a vote from a supporter of another party who has not yet voted. There is no doubt that at the general election in June 1983 large teams of personators were used.
Some evidence of electoral malpractice is provided by the number of tendered ballot papers issued. Those are special pink ballot papers submitted by genuine electors who discover when they get to the polling stations that their votes have already been cast. I should perhaps explain the use of tendered ballot papers under the present law. If a person representing himself to be a particular elector named on the register and not named in the absent voters' list, or a particular person named in the list of proxies and not named in the list of proxies entitled to vote by post, applies for a ballot paper after another person has voted as such an elector or proxy, the applicant shall, upon duly answering the statutory questions, be entitled to make a ballot paper in the same manner as any other voter. But such a ballot paper is pink and is called a tendered ballot paper, and instead of being put into the ballot box, it is given to the presiding officer and endorsed by him with the name of the voter and his number in the register of electors, and set aside in a separate packet. The voter's name and number on the register, or in the case of a proxy, the elector's number on the register are entered on a list called the tendered votes list. On a scrutiny by an election court the vote of the person personating will be struck off, and the vote of the person tendering added. As the admission of the tendered votes raises a prima facie case of personation, evidence may be admitted to rebut it. It follows that the number of tendered ballot papers submitted at an election is an indication—but only an indication, not a precise measure — of the extent of personation at that election. At the 1982 Assembly and 1983 parliamentary general elections the numbers of tendered ballot papers issued was 762 and 949 respectively. The largest numbers were generally in constituencies with a large nationalist electorate in which

Sinn Fein made a particular effort, that is to say Belfast, West and Belfast, North, Mid-Ulster, Foyle and Newry and Armagh.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is it not true that the same tendered ballot papers are used by a presiding officer when a person arrives at the polling station and finds that his name is not on the electoral list? If the list is not properly compiled, that can increase the number of tendered papers.

Mr. Hurd: I do not believe so, but I shall leave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to deal with that matter. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has it exactly right.
A second indication is the number of arrests for personation. There were 26 and 149 arrests at the two elections in 1982 and 1983 that I have been citing. But these figures are likely to be only the start of the matter. They give no real indication of the full extent of electoral abuse. The number of tendered ballot papers issued only indicates those votes stolen where the genuine elector has decided to attend the polling station to vote and feels sufficiently strongly to submit a pink ballot paper. Arrests—the other indicator that I have cited—are more a measure of diligence of candidates and their agents in calling for the arrest of personators, often in difficult or threatening circumstances.
The Government are in no doubt that the extent of personation was greatest at the general election last year. Some observers believe that as much as 20 per cent. of the Sinn Fein vote was acquired by malpractice. The precise figure is obviously difficult to establish given the circumstances of electoral abuse. But that the figure is significant is, I believe, widely accepted throughout the community in Northern Ireland. Personation at the European elections this year seems to have been well down on last year's general election, but I do not believe that the House should take comfort from that. That the opportunity for large-scale malpractice can be available to those bent on destroying constitutional politics in Northern Ireland is, in the Government's view, adequate justification for introducing the Bill.
In considering this, my predecessor and I have taken careful account of the views of those parties in Northern Ireland which, whatever their differences, are united in their belief in constitutional action and the need to protect and preserve the democratic process. I do not propose to list the representations made to the Government by the constitutional parties over the past two years, but we have received strong representations from all the constitutional parties to take decisive action to reduce the opportunities for personation.
I draw the House's attention to a report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland on electoral abuse published on 1 October this year following a thorough investigation. The report was critical of Government in some respects, but in paragraph 32, on the crucial quesion of personation, it stated:
There is, in the Commission's view, a widespread perception that personation has, in recent elections, become much more systematic and organised and more closely associated with paramilitary groups. The majority of political parties have expressed the view that personation at recent elections both in terms of the number of votes lost and of the manner in which personation is conducted has had more effect than previously. Unofficial estimates vary but even the lowest estimate obtained by the Commission is not insignificant. Proof is notoriously


difficult to obtain and hard-and-fast evidence has not been produced to substantiate or disprove allegations but the weight of opinion within the majority of political parties, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and a wide variety of misgivings, is that some form of identification should be required before a person claiming a vote is given a ballot paper. The Commission has reservations about the merits of such a proposal but accepts that it warrants testing.
When the Government came to consider their proposals, they concluded that the effective choice lay between requiring voters to produce some kind of special identification document or requiring them to produce one of a number of specified existing documents. I know that the first option is favoured by some. Indeed, the question of identity cards raises a much wider issue which it would be hard in practice to resolve in terms of Northern Ireland alone. The issue of identity cards for the purpose of voting might be seen as the first step towards requiring people to carry and produce them for other purposes. This is a well worn argument which I remember when I was a Minister of State, Home Office not long ago. I am sure that the House would want to think very carefully before going down that path. It is fair to add that that solution would be slow to introduce, expensive and cumbersome. Some electors might refuse or otherwise fail to obtain such a document however much the parties encouraged them to do so. The effect of this might be to distort the result.
The Government have therefore concluded after a long study that the right course is to require voters to produce one of a number of specified documents. I know of the argument, of which it is certain we shall hear more in the debate, that the Bill offers no satisfactory means of establishing that a person requesting a ballot paper is in fact the person whom he claims to be. I believe that ours is the best method that can be devised once one accepts, as I think one has to at present, that identity cards are excluded. The provisions of the Bill need to be seen whole, and in particular clause 1, on prescribed documents, needs to be considered alongside the new and important offence created by clause 3. In all the circumstances, the Government have concluded that the approach set out in the Bill best balances the urgent need to reduce the opportunities for personation against minimum change in the established procedures for voting. We wanted to find something which can be quickly applied, is effective, and disrupts to the least possible extent the traditional method of voting.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is a grave departure that a document issued by a foreign country and a foreign Government should be brought forward at an election within the United Kingdom for the purpose of identification?

Mr. Hurd: That might well be so if we were proposing in the Bill to alter the franchise. We are not doing that and the objection that the hon. Gentleman raises does not really apply.
I add one more general point. Some may argue that they do not disagree in principle with a Bill to deal with electoral abuse but believe that it should be applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. I have seen some signs that some of my colleagues who represent English constituencies hold that view. I know of the anecdotes that circulate—arrangements in other parts of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland are not strictly matters for me—but the Government have no evidence that there is any widespread electoral abuse in Great Britain. No statistics

for tendered ballot papers completed or arrests for electoral offences are kept by the Home Office because they are generally negligible in Great Britain. There is certainly in Great Britain no widespread and organised electoral abuse backed up by paramilitary force, such as Northern Ireland has had to endure.
I turn briefly to the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 amends the parliamentary elections rules, as respects Northern Ireland, by providing that a ballot paper will not be issued to a voter unless he has produced one of a number of documents that have been prescribed in regulations. As regards the Northern Ireland local government elections next May, the Government propose to bring forward an Order in Council, which will be subject to affirmative resolution, in good time for those elections. The order will contain provisions equivalent to those in clauses 1 to 3 and will also set out the prescribed documents. The provision that I have described is mandatory—the presiding officer or clerk will have no discretion to permit someone to vote without producing a document.
Clause 1 provides also that a presiding officer will refuse to issue a ballot paper if he decides that a document produced by a voter raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the voter is the person he represents himself to be, and further provides that only a presiding officer, not a clerk, may refuse a ballot paper because he decides that a voter's prescribed document raises a reasonable doubt about his identity.
Clause 2 provides that a decision that a prescribed document raises reasonable doubts about a voter's identity may only be reviewed on an election petition. Otherwise, it is to be final, and not to be questioned in any proceedings.
Clause 3 is of crucial importance. It creates an offence of having a prescribed document not bearing the possessor's name, or forged prescribed documents, on polling day for purposes of personation. Clause 3 gives the police the necessary powers in connection with the offence to search vehicles and premises on polling day. The new offence under clause 3(1) attracts maximum penalties on conviction on indictment of imprisonment for two years or a fine or both; and on summary conviction three months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum of £2,000, or both. This clause should provide a sound deterrent to those who might be tempted to amass those prescribed documents for the purpose of personation.
Clause 4 provides that the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts on entitlement to vote do not prejudice the operations of clauses 1 and 2. The Bill does not directly bear on the franchise: no one will lose the right to be on the electoral register. As I have said, those who do not have a prescribed document will not: be able to vote.
Clause 5 ensures that provisions corresponding to the main provisions of this Bill which apply to parliamentary elections may be included in subordinate legislation relating to local government elections in Northern Ireland, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and elections held there to the European Parliament.
Clause 7 deals with citation, extent and commencement including—this is significant—a provision whereby, as respects local government elections in Northern Ireland, the Bill shall come into force as soon as it is passed. The Government believe it is essential for an order including


these provisions to be operating in time for the local government elections in Northern Ireland next May. I know that, for such a Bill, notes on clauses are thought useful by right hon. and hon. Members. They are now available for information in the Vote Office, as I have already informed the party leaders in correspondence.
I shall now consider the documents that might be prescribed. There should be, and I am sure there will be, considerable debate about them. The Government do not have a closed mind on them. We shall listen carefully to arguments in debate both in the House and in another place. I say to those who might be concerned about the list of documents that will apply for the local government elections next May that we intend to announce, before this Bill completes its parliamentary passage, the list of documents that will be included in the draft Order in Council for Parliament's consideration early in the new year.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said that the final list of documents to be included in regulations would be announced before the Bill completes its passage. As we were told during the business statement this afternoon that the legislation was expected to complete its passage through the House next Tuesday—that is what we are concerned about—does that mean that the list will be available next Tuesday?

Mr. Hurd: I said:
we intend to announce, before this Bill completes its parliamentary passage—
obviously, that can include the passage through another place—
the list of documents that will be included in the draft Order in Council for Parliament's consideration early in the new year.
The drawing up of a satisfactory list is not easy. [Interruption.] I entirely accept that. That is why we are especially eager before the list is final, to have the views of right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies.
There are two main dangers: on the one hand, making a list so extensive that easily forged or easily obtained documents are included, and, on the other, making it so narrow that some legitimate voters find difficulty in producing any of the documents. With those considerations in mind, we think at present that the list should comprise: a current Great Britain or Northern Ireland driving licence—but not a provisional driving licence—a current United Kingdom, United Kingdom visitors, or Republic of Ireland passport; a current book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions issued by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland; a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency; and a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar General for England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, in the case of a woman married since the qualifying date for the register used in the election.

Mr. Harold McCusker: The explanatory document provided to hon. Members gave me the impression that the last category included the medical card, plus the marriage lines, of the woman married during the period. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is one or the other? If so, why is it important for the woman to have to produce her marriage lines?

Mr. Hurd: There may be circumstances in which it would be desirable from her point of view, and advisable because of the purposes of the Bill. that that should be one of the documents produced.

Mr. McCusker: Why?

Mr. Hurd: There could be circumstances in which that certificate would be necessary to show that the person concerned is the person on the register.

Mr. Stephen Ross: A change of surname.

Mr. Hurd: That is right. A change of surname may have occurred and the marriage certificate may therefore be the relevant document.

Mr. Ross: Is it not a choice of any of those documents? If the lady does not want to produce the marriage licence, she does not have to do so, unless she cannot produce one of the other documents.

Mr. Hurd: Exactly.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: rose—

Mr. McCusker: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I should continue. I know that there is some criticism of the inclusion of the medical card.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State referred to a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar General for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. What about a marriage certificate issued by the minister on the day of the marriage? Will that not be acceptable?

Mr. Hurd: The hon Gentleman can develop that point during the debate, and we shall listen with respectful attention to his argument. I believe that the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar General will be thought by most people to be the right document in this sense.
I know that there is some doubt about the inclusion of the medical card. The advantage of the medical card is that every member of the Northern Ireland electorate may obtain one without charge. If we confined ourselves to the other documents I have listed, there might be people who were, in effect, disfranchised because it was difficult or expensive for them to get hold of one of the prescribed documents. That, of course, is not our intention.
We recognise that personation is but one form of electoral abuse, but we believe that it is the only one that should be tackled urgently in the Bill. It makes good sense to tighten up the postal voting rules. I know that that is of great significance to some right hon. and hon. Members here. We believe that the right legislative vehicle for parliamentary elections is the Representation of the People Bill, which will be introduced shortly and, as regards next year's local government elections, the rule on postal voting can be set out in the order for those elections.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for interrupting again. I understood the Secretary of State to say that the major Bill, so to speak, which is to come forward would be the appropriate vehicle for tightening up the conditions for postal voting. May I take it that that means that the Government have abandoned their notion of dealing with the difficulties of postal voting in Northern Ireland by withholding the right to vote by post?

Mr. Hurd: No, it does not mean that. It means that we shall put before the House in the Representation of the People Bill, proposals that are familiar to the right hon.
Gentleman, but we shall listen to what is said. If I may, I shall resume what I was proposing to say because I was going to deal with that point.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are fully conscious of the anxiety that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and others have expressed about the proposed absent voting provisions in the Representation of the People Bill. As we have already made clear, we shall listen with great care to the arguments advanced during the passage of that Bill so as to produce arrangements that best meet Northern Ireland's particular circumstances.
I recognise that the introduction of such a Bill represents a departure from the traditional British way of holding elections. I regret that, and I regret the necessity for introducing the Bill, but I have no doubt of the necessity. I believe that first reactions in the Province to the Bill support the belief that our determination to reduce the opportunities for personation will attract considerable support throughout Northern Ireland and among all those in the House and in the United Kingdom who wish to uphold the democratic process.
The existing arrangements were not designed to withstand the pressures to which they are now subject, and, therefore, we have no option but to propose further measures. This, therefore, is an important Bill. We must take early action to protect the right to vote and to frustrate those bent on organising electoral abuse. The point of principle is clear. However, it is right that the points of detail should be argued. We have many differences in the House, and they are argued with strength and sometimes with bitterness, but we all accept how they are finally resolved—in the votes cast by those whom we serve.
We do not count our successes by the number of bombs in the market place or bodies in the street. Our weapon is the democratic system of voting. The Bill will help to ensure that our weapon is kept serviceable and clean. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: May I welcome the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities? This is the first occasion on which he has taken part in our debates on Northern Ireland. The Opposition do not undertake always to agree with him, but we will shall seek to encourage him in well doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) had every intention of being with us, but he was fogbound this morning in Belfast. He hopes to join us shortly.
I hope that this will be a brief contribution to the debate. The Opposition have their differences with the Government in the context of Northern Ireland, and the list is growing, but this subject is not one of them.
The Bill is about electoral democracy and about ensuring that it functions properly and fairly. That would be of great importance anywhere, but at present I believe that it is probably of particular importance in Northern Ireland because there are people there who feel that democratic politics have not fulfilled their hopes, have not given effect to their aspirations and have not provided them with redress for their grievances. Whether that is true or not, it is a belief which could well be self-fulfilling. It is a necessary condition for a democratic political system to be effective that people should feel confident that it is effective; that it provides a fair and honest reflection of opinion; and that the right to vote is their most effective

tool for improving their lot and redressing their grievances. It would be tragic if that confidence were to be further eroded. There is no other hope for the people of Northern Ireland. If they lose confidence in constitutional politics, they are left with nothing.
The need is to strengthen the links between the vote that people cast and the quality of the life which follows. I hope that before long the House will have an opportunity to consider the system of administration in Northern Ireland, because the one proposition that I believe would be assured of general assent in the House is that direct rule is an anaemic substitute for a more robust version of representative government. I hope that shortly the Government will report to the House the progress that has been made in exploring the alternatives. But any constitutional system will depend upon the confidence that people feel in the integrity of the electoral process.
The personation of electors on a wide scale is a poison which could destroy that process. That would be true of personation of the dead or of fictitious persons. It would destroy confidence in the essential characteristic of democracy—that all citizens have equal voting power and that each has one vote It is even more destructive when it consists of the personation of living people who find that they are deprived of the right to vote.

Mr. John Hume: Stealing their votes.

Mr. Archer: It is stealing their votes. That right was hard won by the campaigners of earlier generations, and it should be thought of as a valued possession. For someone to be told, "Your vote has been stolen. It is something that you must accept with resignation. You have no remedy, but we can offer you the consolation prize of a tendered ballot paper," is to be seen as equivalent to being told, "The authorities do not think your vote is important." That is inconsistent with the assurance that hope for the future lies within a system of electoral democracy.
The fact that the problem of personation exists is not in dispute. In his report for 1982–83, the chief electoral registration officer referred to large numbers of allegations by polling agents of personation and, as the Secretary of State said, he referred to the number of tendered ballot papers and of the difficulty which some candidates have in some areas of persuading people to act as their polling agents. He spoke of the
perception of a high level of abuse.
The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, in its report of May 1984, spoke of evidence and perceptions that personation in recent elections had become more systematic.
Hon. Members will be contributing to the debate who are in a better position than I to assess the extent of the problem from their own experience. But of the countless numbers of people in Northern Ireland of all shades of opinion with whom I have spoken over the years no one has sought to conceal the existence of the problem. Personation is accepted as a feature of life. As the Secretary of State said, there are many stories and jokes circulating, and it is part of the folklore. It may be said that personation does not take place only in Northern Ireland—of course instances come to light from time to time on the mainland, but the difference lies in the surprise which they evoke and in the reaction of the people locally.
If an elector in my constituency were to arrive at the polling station to be told that he could not vote because the


vote had already been excercised, he would be surprised and furious. He would come storming round to the committee room demanding that something be done about it. An unsuccessful candidate who had been prejudiced would consider presenting an election petition. The matter would be discussed widely and there would be great indignation.
I have the impression that in Northern Ireland personation appears to occasion no great surprise. Anyone who showed surprise would be regarded perhaps as a little naive. The reaction would probably be a resigned shrug of the shoulders. That is not a criticism of people in Northern Ireland. In any people, it is a virtue realistically to recognise that theory is not always reflected in the practice.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if all presiding officers were more persuasive in ensuring that tendered ballot forms were completed when someone failed to exercise his vote who had the right to do so the record might be different?

Mr. Archer: That might be a solution to part of the problem. Of course, if people insisted on filling in tendered ballot papers that would give us better evidence of how widespread the problem was. But the fact that they do not also shows that abuse is accepted with a certain resignation. The evidence is that the abuse is growing and becoming more systematic.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The tenor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks seems to be that a feeling of resignation has been built into the Northern Ireland electorate which is shown when people go to the polling station and find that their vote has been cast. It is right that they would not be altogether surprised at that, but I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman assuredly that they would be furious if it happened—perhaps more furious than people in Great Britain because it means so much more to them than it does to people over here.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful for that assurance. I hope that people would resent strongly the idea that their vote had been stolen. It is only that I learn from discussions that it is one of the facts of life and people say that there is probably not much that they can do about it, meaning not much that they can do about it unless the authorities take the initiative.

Mr. Hume: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing two issues — personation and vote stealing. Personation has taken place traditionally in Northern Ireland, when people vote for the dead or someone who is absent. That is what the jokes are told about. What we are talking about today is an organised militaristic campaign on a wide scale to steal people's votes. That is different from what has gone on traditionally. That is why the Bill has been introduced.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that distinction. It is a distinction that I was in the process of making, but my last words were lost in a succession of interventions.
I said that the evidence is that abuse is growing and, more important, is becoming more systematic. There is a distinction between personation of the dead and of living electors, and stealing votes. It cannot be said that the

practice may not exist on a sufficient scale to affect the result of elections. The standing advisory commission said that at the general election in 1983 four constituencies in Northern ireland were won by majorities of fewer than 3,000. I have no reason to think that they were won otherwise than fairly, by genuine majorities, but in any future election, when the margins are so narrow, who is to say that the result may not be affected one way or the other by electoral abuse?
So I believe that there is a good case for introducing some measures of the sort proposed in the Bill. I am aware that there have been suggestions for a special document, an identity card that would have to be produced to obtain a ballot paper. I shall listen to the debate with an open mind, but my initial reaction is that most of us already have to obtain and take care of a wide range of documents and that to add one more to the number would be an unjustifiable burden.
I remember an occasion when I lost my wallet. I discovered that I was without my driving licence, my car insurance certificate, my cheque book, my banker's card, my fishing licence, my blood donor's card and my membership tickets of various organisations. I remember reflecting that I had gone out of existence — all my defining characteristics had been stripped from me. Fortunately, I did not lose my railway season ticket, my television licence, my identity pass to the House of Commons or my passport, because they were not in my wallet. But we live documented lives in a paper-ridden society. So the imposition of the burden of obtaining and safeguarding an additional document, with all the consequences that would follow from losing it or leaving it in one's other jacket, is to be avoided if possible.
I prefer the approach in the Bill. It was helpful of the Secretary of State to tell the House the list of documents that he has in mind to prescribe for the purpose. We can discuss that list subsequently. It would be reasonable if that list were discussed before the House was asked to give a final view on the Bill. But I accept that the object of the exercise is to compile a list sufficiently restrictive to make personation more difficult without making it difficult or impossible for bona fide electors to obtain a ballot paper. I welcome the provision that the documents which are produced will be confidential between the elector and the presiding officer.
I should like to fire a warning shot. I confess that when I read the somewhat draconian powers in clause 3(3) it occurred to me that I had read about similar powers on other occasions, when they caused anxiety in other contexts. The right of a police constable to stop and search a person on reasonable suspicion is a provision which we have met before. Of course, he would have to have a reasonable suspicion first that the person was in possession of a prescribed document which was forged, bore a false name or was in the name of someone other than the possessor and, secondly, that the possessor intended to use it for the purpose of committing the offence of personation. But suppose someone had in his possession his parent's pension book or had been asked by a friend to bring his driving licence because he intended to vote but had left it behind that morning. That person might be stopped in the vicinity of a polling station; he might be stopped and searched. Later we shall want some assurances that the use of those powers will be carefully monitored.


Finally, I should like to refer to the proposal in the Gracious Speech to extend the provisions for absent voting, which have already been mentioned in the debate. It appears that at the moment the Government are not minded to extend those provisions to Northern Ireland. That matter does not arise today. There will be other opportunities to discuss it and at this stage I should not like to express a final view. But the issue is not whether the citizens of Northern Ireland are to be treated fairly. We all lend our weight to that proposition. The question is whether it might be more unfair to subject electors in Northern Ireland to a restriction that does not apply elsewhere, or whether the unfairness would be harsher if they were subjected to an electoral system in which they had no confidence.
I noted carefully the remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) in the debate on the Gracious Speech, when he said that the electorate in Northern Ireland should enjoy the same franchise and the same opportunity to vote as electors elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The argument is that Northern Ireland should not be treated differently. The fact is that in several important respects it is different. It is different in the extent of the perception of electoral abuse. It is different in the strains from which the electoral system must be protected.
There have been occasions when it was I who argued that Northern Ireland should not be singled out for special treatment and that the citizens there should not be deprived of rights that were available to other United Kingdom citizens. On 5 July this year the House debated the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order. On that occasion the Opposition drew attention to the inroads that the Act had made upon the civil rights of citizens in Northern Ireland. I sought to persuade the House that the differences between the rights of citizens in Northern Ireland and those of people elsewhere in the United Kingdom should be reviewed to see whether the differences were justified. I failed to persuade the House. I failed to persuade several right hon. and hon. Members who are in attendance today.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not being any more successful today.

Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman may well be right. But none of us holds the view that Northern Ireland should always be treated differently, or that it should never be treated differently. It is not a question of high philosophic principle; it is a matter of judgment based on the evidence.
The Bill may be thought to be marginal to conversations about the future of Northern Ireland. The debate is not likely to go on record as being among the dramatic parliamentary occasions. I hope that shortly the House will be invited to debate matters such as the Baker report, the discussions consequent on the forum report and the economy of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, it is an important Bill, and I hope that it will make a contribution to the healthy democratic way of life that we all wish for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
 this House, while desirous of checking electoral abuse in any part of the Kingdom and prepared to consider proposals to extend

the responsibilities and powers of presiding officers, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which offers no satisfactory means of establishing that a person requesting a ballot paper is in fact the elector who he claims to be.
Before arguing the case for the amendment, on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist party I welcome the Secretary of State in his new position and to the Dispatch Box in his first appearance in that capacity. He has, of course. the disadvantage of having come very suddenly to the proposals that he had to put before the House and one was bound to sense that the background was not entirely familiar to him. The passage of time will remedy that difficulty and he may rely on my right hon. and hon. Friends to be available to afford him whatever advice and information we can.
The Bill concerns the entire United Kingdom. It would be absurd to claim that it does not. Any alteration in the conditions for voting in any part of the United Kingdom is the concern of all parts of the United Kingdom and of all Members of the House. It is impossible to say that there is any part of the kingdom in which anxieties do not or might not exist for the integrity of the electoral process. Indeed, in earlier debates we heard from Members representing areas as far apart as Wales and Leicestershire the asseveration that personation was not unknown there.
I associate myself with the claim of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights that
given that the potential for its abuse"—
that is, abuse of the democratic process—
is not peculiar to Northern Ireland some of the safeguards currently applied here together with the Commission's suggestions and recommendations could have a wider application.
Let hon. Members be assured that if we qualify or hedge the right of an elector in any part of the kingdom to receive a ballot paper, the matter will come home to roost in other parts of the United Kingdom. This debate and the considerations that apply to the Bill should be laid to heart by Members from all parts of the kingdom.
It would be the predisposition of any hon. Member to be prejudiced in favour of measures preventing electoral abuse. None of us stands to gain from it. None of us is in the business of electoral abuse. One starts prejudiced in favour of a measure laid before the House with the purpose of reducing the scope for electoral abuse. It is, therefore, with the more regret that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I, having studied as best we could not only the provisions of the Bill but the details that have been withheld from it—that is, the list of prescribed documents—have concluded that on balance the Bill will not be beneficial, that it will be onerous to the genuine elector without being effective in checking the abuses at which it is aimed.
We regret, therefore, that our advice to the House must be that the Bill should not be accepted in its present form. The whole matter should be reconsidered by the Government, not just in the light of the debates that will take place on the Bill but on maturer reflection.
It is puzzling that the Bill should have been brought forward with such pressure and haste. Its whole content and the manner of its presentation are redolent of haste and almost panic—ill counsellors in amending the fundamental law of the United Kingdom in so far as it concerns the representation of the people. There has been no real consultation on the contents of the Bill. I accept that there have been interchanges between the Government and various bodies in Northern Ireland, including the


political parties, about electoral abuse; but the proposals contained in the Bill have never been submitted for consideration or criticism to any of those bodies. The House is being asked to consider these proposals for the first time in their present form.
Despite the comments of the Secretary of State, there is strikingly little evidence to support the urgency that has been advocated. In the same document from which the Secretary of State quoted, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights stated:
Any debate which has taken place seems to have relied on assumptions about Northern Ireland which have not been complemented by extensive consultations or by a careful examination of the facts.
I concede at once that in the nature of the case we cannot have full statistics on electoral abuse: the volume of abuse must be deduced from certain indirect indications. The Secretary of State did not seek to deny that. No relationship can be established between evidence such as that of tendered papers in the last election and the volume or importance of the general phenomenon of personation. Still less has any evidence been advanced to show that the volume of that abuse in the Province has increased. Views to the effect—observations to which the term "perceptions" is applied—are frequently heard and widely held; but evidence to justify approving the measures in the Bill on the ground that a growing practice must be checked immediately despite all difficulties has not been produced so far and was certainly not available in the speech of the Secretary of State.
At the root of the abuse with which the Bill is concerned lie two things. First, there is the identification of an individual: who is he? Secondly, there is the establishment of that individual, once identified, as the person entered in the electoral register as entitled to a vote. I believe that it is useful to keep those two separate indentifications apart in studying the Bill and in debating what is practicable and desirable.
The Government propose that no one should be permitted to vote without production of a document. That is the heart of the Bill. In Northern Ireland in the future the right to vote is to be qualified by the condition that it be exercised only on production of a document. Quite obviously, a Bill which has that profound effect can not only not be justified but cannot even be seriously debated unless the House has before it a statement of the documents to which that power is to be attached by the legislation.
The documents are not specified in the Bill. The Government could have written them into the Bill and still retained a power to vary and alter them subsequently by affirmative order. By failing to do so, the Government presented the House with a major proposal for changing the law without at the same time giving the House the basis on which to judge the validity and desirability of their proposal. True, the Minister, so far as he would within the exigencies of time—which I presume were not his choice but that of the managers of Government business—made available to hon. Members who sought enlightenment a proposed list of the prescribed documents in the form of notes on clauses, and I understand that these are available now in the Vote Office.
However, it is not good enough, when the case for the Bill depends on the nature of the documents to be

prescribed, for us to be told that a list is available in the Vote Office and that we can debate the Bill without having it before us. So far as we can, my hon. Friends and I have sought to remedy this disability by putting down for Committee stage an amendment which writes those specifications into the Bill and thus makes it possible for us, when we consider the Bill in detail, to look at them one by one and consider what their effect would be if they were enacted.
I have one general statement to make about all the documents which have been suggested. Not one of them is a document which it is the duty of every citizen to hold. There will be citizens who, quite justifiably and properly, do not possess any one of those documents. So we are depriving electors of the right to vote for not possessing a document which they have no duty in law to possess. To put it the other way round, we are making the possession of a document which the citizen does not need to hold the condition of the exercise of his franchise.
That is the first objection to the proposal as it stands. In my view, it is a deeply serious objection. It illustrates my point that we need knowledge of the documents in order to judge the Bill, for if there were among them a document which every citizen has to possess, that difficulty would be be removed. As the list stands, it does not include a single document which every citizen is required by law to possess.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that my argument takes us in the direction of an identity card to be carried by all citizens, and that that is a bigger question. If he is not prepared to face the difficulty that the documents are documents which the citizen is not required to possess, he should reconsider the principle on which he has based his Bill.
I must now take the documents one by one. I will show that they do not in fact establish what we need to establish in order to prevent personation, bearing in mind the two identifications which have to be made—the identificaton of the individual presenting himself in the polling station, and the identification of that person with the elector specified on the electoral roll. Some of the documents bear no evidence of identity. They fail the first test. Some of them fail the second test, because they bear no evidence that the holder is the person specified on the register at a particular address. None of them satisfies both tests.
For instance, the Great Britain driving licence specifies the address of the holder but it does not carry a photograph. Again so far as I know, all the three passports mentioned carry a photograph of the holder but none of them contains his address. An allowance book—as I fear is too well known—contains the address of the lawful beneficiary but no evidence of his appearance or identification. Finally, the medical card not only contains no photograph of the holder but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) may show—gives an address which probably far more frequently than not is not that currently occupied by the holder.
None of those defects is due to any offence committed by the holder or any unlawful omission on his part. It is not the fault of those who hold such documents if, in the respects which I have mentioned, they no longer include accurate evidence, for example, of the holder's address.
Taken as a whole, then, the documents do not provide the evidence which is required for the two essential


identifications. I now invite the right hon. Gentleman to turn to the crucial provision in the Bill, which is contained in new paragraph (1B) of rule 37. I quote:
Where a voter produces a prescribed document, the presiding officer…shall deliver a ballot paper to the voter unless the officer…decides that the document raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the voter is the elector or proxy he represents himself to be.
Let us suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann goes along to vote and takes his medical card, and that his card carries an address at which he no longer happens to reside. Does that raise
a reasonable doubt as to whether
he is the voter on the register? I would have thought that it was a defiance of the natural meaning of those words to deny "reasonable doubt" where a person claimed to vote as a particular elector at a particular address and produces a document which showed him as living somewhere else.
It might be that neither the voter's Christian name nor his surname were rarities. They might both be very common indeed, either in general or—as is often the case in Northern Ireland—in that particular locality. The identification of the elector by the place where he lives is therefore a matter of extreme importance—the acid question. Yet here we have an enactment which states that if any one of the documents which the elector produces
raises a reasonable doubt as to whether
he is the person of that name living at that place, he will not be given a ballot paper.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell me if I am mistaken, but to my belief the presiding officer asks the voter no question. Subject to correction, I understand that the presiding officer is not entitled under the law to ask the voter how it happens that the address on his document is not the address of the elector who he claims to be. Repeated rulings of the courts have declared that such inquiries are not within the power of a presiding officer. So the Bill enacts that, without making any further inquiry, the presiding officer must examine only the document
unless the officer or clerk decides that the document raises a reasonable doubt".
The word is "the document"—the presiding officer is entitled to direct his attention to the document and nothing else. There is no suggestion that the elector can be given his ballot paper because an inquiry establishes that he lives at the address of the elector who he claims to be. The presiding officer will not ask him, "Tell me the name of the people who live at No. 27," or, "Do you know the name of the people who live opposite?". There will be no such investigation. If the document is not 100 per cent. evidence of the identity of that person—if it "raises a reasonable doubt"—the ballot paper will be withheld.
In the notes on clauses there are comforting references to the fact that the elector will be allowed to return home to try to find another document. I was extremely grateful to the draftsman of those notes for the assurance that an elector will be allowed to have a second go. One might almost have supposed that, at some time in the drafting of the Bill, provisions were discussed that would have prevented him from doing so.
I invite you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to a flight of imagination which does not take you beyond your personal experience. Imagine you are in a polling station at 9.45 pm. An elector, in all good faith, knowing that one of the documents he can bring with him is his medical card, produces it. The presiding officer, doing his duty, says,

"This document raises a reasonable doubt whether you are the elector." He does so without looking at the elector or asking any questions. The elector says, "If you do not like it, I will go away and try to find another document". Will he get back in time to vote? Has he been denied his vote falsely and improperly? Yes, he has. That is what will happen on a massive scale as a result of the provisions of the Bill. People will be asked to produce documents which some of them, with every right and justification, do not possess. Others, who possess those documents, will discover that they do not meet the terms of the Bill.

Mr. William Ross: Is not the most astonishing aspect the fact that the presiding officer could look at my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) and say, "I know that you are Harold McCusker. My eyes tell me that, my personal knowledge tells me that, but the document does not tell me that, so go away." Is it not a fact that in Northern Ireland thousands of electors are known to presiding officers at every polling station, yet they will not be allowed to use the evidence of their eyes?

Mr. Powell: I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Hume: They are not legislating for common sense.

Mr. Powell: I take the point of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) also. Common sense would indeed dictate that the presiding officer should use his knowledge and ask such questions as he thought fit to elicit whether an imposition was being attempted; but the law prevents that—the requirements of the legislation are clear and specific.
A simple conclusion can be drawn from all this as to the direction in which we should improve our electoral law in future. We must find a way of escaping from the nonsense of presiding officers putting the statutory questions to a person who asks for a ballot paper and then being obliged to give it him although they know the answer was a lie. It is called a "satisfactory" answer if it is either yes or no, as the case may be—that is the meaning of art of the word "satisfactory" in this context. Under the law at present, if those statutory questions are answered—however manifestly untruthfully they are answered—the ballot paper must still be delivered. I see no direction m which we can make progress—and progress must be made not only in Northern Ireland but in other parts of the United Kingdom to preserve the integrity of the electoral process—unless we are prepared to give presiding officers responsibility for satisfying themselves that the person to whom they give a ballot paper is the person intended by the entry in the electoral roll to have a vote.
Only one thing can be done wisely with the Bill. The Government should take it away and reconsider the whole matter. We shall have an opportunity in Committee—commencing next week, though there is no assurance of that stage being completed next week—of discussing in more detail the meaning of the provisions and the nature and consequences of the documents which are proposed to be specified.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is under no obligation as a Back-Bench Member to put forward a positive proposal, but I have listened carefully to his analysis and to his criticisms. Is it his conclusion, according to his perceptions, that there is no real need for


such a measure, or is it his conclusion that a measure is needed, but that it must rest on a completely different basis, including a special document that would in effect be an identity card?

Mr. Powell: My propositions are—this is a resume—first, that whatever is necessary is necessary for all electors in all parts of the United Kingdom; there should be assurance of the integrity of the electoral process throughout the United Kingdom. Secondly, we must entrust presiding officers with a discretion that is at present withheld from them by law. Thirdly, if we believe that that is not satisfactory and that there must also be documentary certification of identity, such certification must be binding and compulsory on all citizens, as otherwise we shall create an injustice by the Bill, an injustice between one citizen and another as well as between the citizens of one part of the United Kingdom and those of the rest of the United Kingdom. I hoped that I had not left those conclusions in any doubt by my argument, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for eliciting the restatement from me.
When the Secretary of State has heard argument, not only today but in Committee, on the details of the Bill, he should recognise that it will be oppressive to the genuine elector—perhaps on a massive scale—without being effective. He should take it away and after more thought has been given, deal with this problem in the wider context of legislation on the representation of the people in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I join my colleagues in wishing the Secretary of State well in his appointment. I should say that I was not a party to a resolution in the Northern Ireland Assembly calling for him to return home immediately he was appointed, as other Members were, but that is only by the way. He will know already that the representatives of Northern Ireland will speak their minds to him forthrightly and fully.
I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that the Bill was conceived in great haste. I can illustrate that. I do not wish to repeat anything that has been said because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. All the notes on clauses, except one, have been commented on by the right hon. Member for South Down, and I wish to deal with that one. It is evident that the person who drew up this Bill was divorced from the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State should know that, when a marriage takes place in a church building, and the officiating minister issues a marriage certificate, the Registrar General for Northern Ireland knows nothing about it for three months, until the marriage return is given to him.
Therefore, a woman can get married and change her name. She goes along to the presiding officer to cast her vote and she has her marriage certificate from the minister, which is the only certificate that she can have inside a three-month period, and she has her medical card. The presiding officer says that the certificate is not from the Registrar General for Northern Ireland and, according to the Bill, a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar General for England and Wales, for Scotland or for

Northern Ireland is what is required. It would be impossible for that woman to have such a certificate inside a three-month period.
The people of Northern Ireland who are married in the churches of Northern Ireland get their marriage certificates from the minister who officiates at the ceremony. Any minister knows how often, in cases of pensions, death and unemployment benefit, the people come directly to him to get the necessary certificate. Therefore, the person who drew up the Bill was completely divorced from what is happening in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McCusker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in all probability, the lady in question does not require marriage lines to justify to the presiding officer that she is the entry on the register, because the entry is in her maiden name and she is still that person, even if her name has changed? She would probably have ample evidence to show that that is still the case.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree, but I am dealing with what the Bill is saying, and it makes a laughing stock of the position in Northern Ireland. It means that the House is asked to accept something that is not a part of real life in Northern Ireland. If we are dealing with certificates and documents, let us deal with them as they are in Northern Ireland. Let us not have an English, Scottish or Welsh situation introduced into Northern Ireland, as if that is what happens there as well. I know that nonconformist churches have a different form of registration of marriages, but all this shows that the Bill has been conceived in great haste. We have only just finished debating the Queen's Speech, and the next day we are rushed in to the Bill, and that makes me wonder.

Mr. Hume: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a serious problem of electoral abuse in Northern Ireland? If he does accept that, what measures does he propose to deal with it?

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman waits a little, he will discover my view, which has already been given in writing to the previous Secretary of State. I have a firm view on this matter, about which the new Secretary of State should know. I am dealing with an important point about these documents. If there is any sense in the legislation that we are asked to pass, that legislation should help to deal with the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). I suggest that this Bill will not help at all but will hinder.
The House should be encouraging the people of Northern Ireland to go to the ballot box more. It is difficult to get people to vote in Northern Ireland, for the simple reason that they say that the House of Commons does not recognise what the ballot box says. That is said over and over again. People ask what is the use of voting. If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about Northern Ireland, he will know that that is asked by his supporters as well as by the supporters of other parties. People should be encouraged to vote and should not be hindered in their desire to do so.
Legislation such as this will discourage people from voting for the simple reason that the document concerned, which may be the right document, may raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the presiding officer, instead of helping the presiding officer to give the voter a ballot


paper, and he will have to follow the law and not give a ballot paper. It would be terrible if the House discouraged voting patterns in the Province.
I had serious misgivings about the Bill, but after listening to the Secretary of State I have more. The House needs to know before Tuesday what the documents are. On Tuesday, we go into Committee on the Floor of the House, but we shall be in ignorance of what the documents are. How can we be asked to deal with this matter in Committee if we do not know that? It is important that we should know before Tuesday.
It is no use us knowing what the documents are when the Bill goes to the other place, nor if we are told that we shall hear about them as the parliamentary procedures continue. That will mean that when the Bill is discussed in the other place, we shall hear, having finished our discussions, what the regulations will be. The House needs to know now, and the Secretary of State should give us an assurance that we shall know what we are passing, so that we may discuss it in a proper manner.
It is deplorable that we have the present position in Northern Ireland. That highlights the fact that the House, and successive Governments, have failed to deal with law and order in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has told us that this legislation is to deal with the actions of Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. He has said that it is not the constitutional parties that are responsible for the problem, but Sinn Fein and the IRA.
If the IRA had been dealt with properly by the Government, and if proper actions had been taken by the Government, we should not have to discuss legislation such as this tonight. There is no doubt that we need to emphasise this because a serious situation has arisen in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that in areas where Sinn Fein and the IRA—they are one and the same and we do not need to make a distinction between them—have a strong following, although not necessarily a majority, they intimidate the voters. They also put pressure on those who represent the other candidates in an election. That is important, because candidates have polling agents in the electoral booths to look after their interests and to see that those who are voting are proper voters.
I know that pressure is put on individuals. The people who go into the polling booths as agents for the candidates must be well known in the area. They are of little use if they are not well known. They must know practically everyone in the area, and they must be able to discern whether a would-be voter is acting rightly.
In the quiet comfort of the House hon. Members may not realise it, but sitting in a polling booth, seeing a person come in who is known to be attached to the IRA and known to have been into the booth before, for anyone to open his mouth and say so is to invite a petrol bomb that night or a member of his family being shot. Those are the facts of life that we have to face.
I salute those who are prepared to undertake the task of acting as polling agents in elections. When I started electioneering in Ulster there were polling booths into which I put people which I would not dream of doing today. I would not risk their lives. No election is worth a life. There are polling booths in my constituency which I used to visit during elections that I would not visit today in case I caused trouble to individuals in the area. Those are the facts of life brought about by successive Governments not facing the truth.
We have that situation today, and very serious it is. If we are to rectify it, the IRA nettle has to be grasped. I do not understand how an organisation can one day be proscribed and the next day be legal and free to go about its business. The leadership of Sinn Fein is the leadership of the IRA, and the actions of Sinn Fein are typical of actions of the IRA. There is no difference between them. I have made a study of the position on the ground, and I find that those who lead the Provisional IRA are those who lead Sinn Fein. They have a joint leadership.
The Government should do something about the IRA and Sinn Fein. There is no reason why they should not say that Sinn Fein is proscribed, because it is in reality part of the IRA set-up.
Coming to the matter with which the Bill seeks to deal, I stress that it must be dealt with in a practical and sensible way that grasps the nettle. The only way that that can be done is to have a proper method of identifying the would-be voter. If there is no proper way of doing so, the whole exercise is abortive. I suggest to the Secretary of State that none of the documents that he has mentioned will give a proper, realistic identification. That is why I have to condemn this proposal. It will not succeed.
I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) will take note of what I am saying. We are discussing a very important measure. There is a problem, and it needs to be grappled with, but the only way to do it is to have a proper means of establishing a person's identity.
How is that to be done? There has to be a proper identity card bearing a photograph of the holder, his description, his present address and his signature. What is more, when anyone votes with that card there has to be a way of marking or punching it so that it cannot he used again in the same election.
We are told that that cannot be done. If we are not prepared to do it, we are unable to deal with the situation. If we say no to that, any other way is putting an onus on the presiding officer, who will not be able to do his job properly.
As for the mechanics of the Government's proposal, how long will it take to vote in Northern Ireland under this system? A person arrives in the polling booth, he gives his name and number and he is then asked what document he has. Most would-be voters will say that they did not know they needed any documents. Frequently they do not even know the names of the candidates, let alone the document that is required from them. I hope that part of the mechanism will be to put the names of candidates before the electorate. But the presiding officer can say to such a person, "It is all right. You have come in good faith, but you cannot produce any document which I can say is .a prescribed document. Such voters as you raise a reasonable doubt in my mind, but I will permit you to go away and, if you wish, you may reapply some time later for a ballot paper by producing one of the prescribed documents."
That is all very well, but there is only one qualification for the franchise. It is that a person must be over 18 years of age and on the electoral roll. Now we are changing that. We are saying that we shall have a different way in Northern Ireland and that anyone who is unable to produce one of the necessary documents cannot vote.
How much time will it take? The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) talked about people voting before 10 pm. But in Northern Ireland elections we do not vote from 7 am until 10 pm. That applies to parliamentary


elections, of course, but in local elections and Assembly elections voting is only allowed between 8 am and 8 pm. The right hon. Member for South Down spoke of an elector coming to the polling booth at a quarter to 10, but in the case of a local election it would have to be at a quarter to eight. There is less time for voting. What is to happen if there is a queue of people down the road claiming to have the necessary documents? Will they be unable to get into the polling booth after it is due to close? The first to shout about that if it happened would be the hon. Member for Foyle. We all know that people in Northern Ireland do not vote early. The peak voting period is round about tea time.
What about this time factor? Will the Secretary of State assure us that there will be more ballot boxes and more workers in polling booths? I can assure him that we shall need twice the number of workers and twice the number of polling stations that we have in an ordinary election. Will the Secretary of State give that undertaking? According to the Bill not much money is to be spent on the Government's proposal.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the time scale is further shortened by the fact that under the Stormont Electoral Law Act, under which local government and Assembly elections are held, presiding officers take it upon themselves to instruct the policeman on duty outside polling stations not to admit people so that they may queue inside in the remaining few hours before the polls close?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Anyone shut out remains shut out even though he may have been there before the appointed time. If there is a queue, people are not allowed into a polling station.
Are we to have extra time? Will polling in Northern Ireland be from 7 am to 10 pm, as it is for elections to this House? Will the hours be even longer, because there will be awful delay in getting the necessary documents presented and moving people towards the ballot boxes?
By a law passed by the House the voting arrangements for local government elections and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland are different. They are not one-seat constituencies. It takes longer to vote. People are not voting for just one candidate. There are possibly 20 candidates, and even more in local government elections. Voting takes a long time. I remember a former Prime Minister, now Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, talking about devolution for Wales and Scotland and saying that the people of Wales and Scotland would be confused and therefore that it was not possible to bring on proportional representation. I congratulate the people of Northern Ireland on being wise enough to be able to use proportional representation. But it takes longer and every hon. Member from Northern Ireland knows that.
What can be done about the time factor? The Government must face up to the problem. Or do they not want the people of Northern Ireland to vote? We have to face up to that. Northern Ireland will be kept on the right path only if the people are given the opportunity to exercise their franchise properly. If that is taken away we shall be in serious trouble.
I and my colleagues will be voting for the reasoned amendment tonight. We are not saying that there is no problem. Let it not be said that Unionists of all sections

said that there is no problem. We know the problem from a point of view different from that of the hon. Member for Foyle. We know what happens in areas of divide such as Toome, Dunloy and the Glens, and those areas where we no longer put people into polling stations because of threats and intimidation. I can well understand the situation that people who represent his party face. I know what is happening.
Let it not be said that we do not think there is a problem. There is. But the only way to deal with it is in the way that I have suggested. If it is not dealt with in that way, at the end of the day all those documents will only make matters more difficult for the presiding officer and for the person who believes in the ballot box and wants legally to exercise his franchise. I appeal to the Government to have second thoughts on the matter and face up to the reality of the situation.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new post. If he is not in despair already, I shall be surprised. I thought that this was an enabling measure and a Second Reading debate. But it appears that, because the Government have been generous enough to suggest various documents, the proposals are being torn to ribbons already.
I speak in ignorance in as much as I have never—thank God—been in Northern Ireland during a general or local election. I have enough problems in my constituency. Therefore, I do not propose to speak with any confidence that I shall get any of the facts right about election time in Northern Ireland. But it is true to say that the chief electoral officer, Mr. Bradley, has instigated considerable improvements in procedures over the past few years. As we recognise from the Secretary of State's comments, there was not quite so much abuse in the European elections last year.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) say that people in North Ireland do not turn out to vote. They certainly turned out to vote in vaster numbers than in the rest of the United Kingdom during the European elections. Some loopholes have been closed, but it seems to be accepted that there is need for further action. Therefore, albeit reluctantly, I agree that the measure before us today is required.
I am interested in what has been said about the documents themselves. If the matter does not come up in Committee on Tuesday it will surely be coming in the affirmative resolution which will come before the House in due course. I want to throw out a suggestion which will probably be shot down in flames. Surely checks should be made when the registers are prepared, which I believe is now done by the political parties in Northern Ireland. Is there not some way in which a polling card could be validated before electors go to the polls? If the electoral register is right and people then have to get their polling cards and have them validated, that may be one way round the problem.
If we are to reintroduce identity cards, and if the speech of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is taken on board and they apply throughout the United Kingdom, surely everybody in the House will say that the rest of the United Kingdom will be completely opposed to the introduction of identity cards. General opinion would be against it. It would be far too drastic.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman is a great believer in the EC. Do not other member states of the EC use identity cards? Is not the identity card which we as hon. Members carry a great convenience and protection of ourselves as well as of the public interest? Why does he object to a document with a photograph and a signature which can clear up all kinds of difficulties for the citizen?

Mr. Ross: Well, I am opposed to it, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that public opinion in Britain would be opposed to it as well. I remember, as he will, because he is probably of my age, the joy with which we burnt our identity cards after the last world war. There would be just as much outrage over their reintroduction as over the abolition of the £1 note.
On the whole, the list of prescribed documents seems adequate, but I accept that points have been made which should be taken on board in Committee and when the affirmative motion is before the House.
There is provision of some £50,000 for equipment in the polling stations and £45,000 for additional staff. That should cover some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. Surely it would not be difficult to change the polling hours. Why can we not extend polling hours to 9 or 10 o'clock if it will take longer to vote? I am aware that there have been impersonations. What has been going on in some parts of Northern Ireland has been described to me. Some 14-year-olds have masqueraded as people much older. However, despite the additional bureaucracy, this is a worthwhile measure and I shall certainly support it.

Mr. John Hume: We should recognise at the beginning that the Bill is about the protection of the right to vote in Northern Ireland, which has come under fairly serious threat in recent elections. Every hon. Member who has spoken accepts that it is a serious problem. My party in particular has had to face the problem at its most serious.
At the moment the only protectors of the right to vote in Northern Ireland are party agents in polling stations who have to challenge people who come in who they think are not the persons on the register. There has been a fairly sustained and widespread attempt in recent elections to steal votes in an organised fashion.
In my constituency in the previous election we kept a record of such attempts. In each polling station there were about 700 voters. By lunch time on election day in the stations where that check was carried out my agents had turned away an average of 50 voters per booth. They were turned away, not arrested, so they do not appear on the record. In addition, in many areas of Northern Ireland such people were not stopped. People who do such work are subject to intimidation. As everybody knows, SDLP workers' homes were attacked after that election to ensure that they would not sit in polling booths in future. It is wrong to place on ordinary people the responsibility of protecting the right to vote. There is a duty on hon. Members to produce the means to do so. I hope that the argument today is not about the principle but about the means and the objectives.
Some doubts have been raised about the particular measures proposed. We have discussed the problem with the Secretary of State and his predecessor. What is

proposed today is not a perfect or foolproof system of preventing voting abuse, but it substantially reduces the possibility.
I also hope that it is only a temporary measure because there is a much more foolproof method of stopping voting abuse. I recognise the urgency of what is put forward. It is the only way to deal with the problem before next year's local elections. When talking about local elections and proportional representation in Northern Ireland, one is talking about seats being won on 50 to 100 votes. Therefore, the Bill has a major importance for local government elections and some action must be taken before next May. This is the only action that can be taken before May.
However, I urge the Secretary of State to realise that the best way of controlling vote-stealing is at the point of registration. A voter who registers for a vote is not asked his date of birth; he is merely asked to state that he is over 18. He ought to be asked to state his date of birth and sign his application for a vote. A copy of his signature and his date of birth could be given to the presiding officer and that would be a foolproof system of preventing vote-stealing without burdening people with the methods that have been proposed today.
I ask the Secretary of State to include such a system in the Bill for the future registration of voters. I agree that there are loopholes in the proposed system, but it is the best that can be done, bearing in mind the urgency of dealing with the problem.

Mr. William Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that instead of the head of the household filling in a form for his household every year, each individual elector should have to apply for a vote?

Mr. Hume: Yes. That is precisely what I am saying.

Mr. Harold McCusker: I favour the objectives of the Bill. Unlike some hon. Members, I have personal experience of the abuses that occur.
However, two activities in Northern Ireland have acquired a mythology—smuggling and personation. We all have our favourite stories. We repeat them, they become exaggerated and eventually form the folklore referred to in the background documentation provided by the Secretary of State.
Not long ago a Parliamentary Under-Secretary who was asked about control of the border told us that there was no way that the border could be controlled and cited in support of his claim the fact that smuggling had been going on for centuries. He forgot that the border had existed for only 55 years. That Minister was taken in by the mythology.
Much of what is said about personation is exaggerated, and I regret that some of the comments in this debate will contribute to the mythology and the folklore. The background documentation uses such words as "overwhelming impression" and "much folklore". It says that there are no figures to support claims of widespread personation, but adds that any figures might represent only the tip of the iceberg. The documents refer to reports of extensive abuse at the Assembly elections, the general election of 1983 and the European elections of 1984. I hope that we can dispel some of that mythology.
There is abuse, but increasingly it exists only in isolated locations in specific constituencies. In many areas, personation, as distinct from vote-stealing, never occurs.
I am worried that attempts to eliminate abuse in some areas may have damaging and drastic effects on ordinary people seeking to exercise their right to vote. Perhaps we should try merely to reduce personation and vote-stealing rather than to eliminate them.
Until the early 1970s, "benign" personation was practised by both parties in Northern Ireland. Both parties abided by certain unwritten rules. The voting registers were seen to include Unionist and Nationalist voters. Party activists put people's names on the register and felt that they had a duty to ensure that all the votes were cast.
If sickness, death, holidays, changes of employment or people moving house meant that some voters were not able to vote, the enthusiasts felt obliged to ensure that those votes were cast. I do not justify that practice, but it was carried out by both parties in most elections.
As I said, we all have our favourite stories. Early in my active involvement in politics, a woman who had buried her husband the previous day came to the caravan where I was acting as a tallyman and handed in her late husband's papers. Tearfully, she said, "I know Willie John would have wanted his vote cast." There was no way that any of o us could tell her that she could not do that. She did not think that she was doing anything wrong. She merely thought that fate had denied her husband the opportunity to do his duty and that it was incumbent upon her to ensure that that duty was performed. I am sure that it was performed.
I also recall a little old lady aged about 67, with white hair and bright rosy cheeks, coming to a polling station and saying, "My granddaughter has the same name as me, but she went to university last week. I have already voted at another polling station, but is there anything to stop me from voting for my granddaughter?" I said that there were plenty of things to stop her, but there was no stopping her. When she came out of the polling station five minutes later, her face was rosier than it had been when she went in. I asked her what happened and she said, "They told me that I was too young to vote." She had forgotten that her granddaughter, whose name was on the register, had not reached the qualifying voting age.
Those sort of stories contribute to the mythology and become the basis of jokes and anecdotes. Many hon. Members accept it as a fact that there is widespread personation throughout Northern Ireland. That view is accepted in The Economist this week. It talks of the "spoilsport" Government interfering in yet another hallowed Ulster tradition and says:
But the Province's democratic parties, most of which have in the past won seats with bogus votes, will unite to support the change. They fear the electoral impact of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army.
I dispute the claim that any political party ever won a seat as a consequence of personation. If that were true, surely all the academic investigations conducted into Northern Ireland affairs over the past 15 years would have produced some proof. But that has not happened. The truth is that the benign personation was invariably a waste of time. The votes cast usually cancelled each other out, and the hackles of activists were raised only when someone broke the rules. Over the years, various parties would kick up a fuss

about personation if they lost the election. That was almost part of the game as well. But they never thought it worth while to pursue it much further than that. However, things have changed because Sinn Fein has broken the rules and has engaged in vote-stealing on a massive scale. That is "malign" personation. By and large, the other type of personation was accepted. There were ground rules, and it had little effect. However, this vote-stealing is different. There can be no doubt but that party activists are very concerned about it.
Nevertheless, vote-stealing does not take place throughout the Province. It is no doubt practised in Belfast, West, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mid-Ulster and perhaps in Foyle and to some extent in Newry and Armagh, but that is only five constituencies out of 17. In most of the Province the attitude towards benign personation has changed. Most people think that it is a waste of time and that it performs no useful function. They are also beginning to realise that the rest of the world frowns on such behaviour, and they do not want to belittle themselves by engaging in it.
In my experience such vote-stealing is virtually confined to Sinn Fein. It is highly organised and extremely refined. I worked on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in the first by-election that he fought. I went into polling stations in Coalisland and Washing Bay where no Unionists voted or could be put in to act as polling agents. What I saw there shocked me to the core. I could not believe that there could be abuse on such a scale. Of course, the Sinn Fein activists were simply stealing the votes of their co-religionists. They were stealing not Unionist but Roman Catholic votes. One family after another would arrive at the polling station only to be told that their votes had already been cast. They would momentarily fly into a rage and then look at the Sinn Fein representative in the polling station. When they were asked whether they wanted to make a complaint they shrugged their shoulders and left. I witnessed that in both Washing Bay and Coalisland.
Later that evening I went to Dungannon, having been disgusted at what I had seen earlier in the day. It was not the stealing of votes that revolted me as much as the total disregard for the democratic process. In a school in Dungannon I watched young Sinn Fein activists being rugby tackled along the corridors as they raced out of the various booths where they had been challenged. Some of the party workers who were there on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone thought that it was tremendous that those people were being caught. Indeed, substantial numbers were caught, but for every one caught, perhaps six or seven got away. When I was asked why I was not smiling I had to say that it was because I was watching people who did not give a fig for the democratic process and were systematically exploiting its weaknesses. As far as they were concerned, they would exploit it when it suited them, with the objective of destroying it.
Therefore, I have personal experience of vote-stealing, and I have no doubt that it also occurs in the other constituencies. Let us consider what has happened during the recent elections in Northern Ireland. I disagree with something that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said. Personation does not have the same impact on elections using proportional representation as on first-past-the-post elections. At the most, it could affect the election result in so far as one out of five, one out of six or one out


of seven candidates would be elected who would not otherwise have been. However, in a first-past-the-post election, the situation could be completely altered and the wrong person could be elected. The effectiveness of personation is therefore reduced when proportional representation is used. I have not given the matter much thought, but I should imagine that the more personation, the higher the quota. Therefore it can have an adverse effect on one's objective.
We have heard that it is thought that massive personation took place during the 1982 election for the Assembly. On that occasion, for every person who voted in Antrim, South, one person did not vote. There was a 52 per cent. poll there. In Antrim, North, for every six people who voted, or thereabouts, more than four people did not vote, because there was only a 57 per cent. poll. The figures are: in Belfast, North a 59 per cent. poll; in Belfast, South a 61 per cent. poll; in Belfast, East a 54 per cent. poll and in North Down a 53 per cent. poll. There were several constituencies with reasonable percentage rates in the sixties. Once again, only two constituencies had figures that showed that there might have been abuse. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone there was an 83 per cent. poll and in mid Mid-Ulster a 75 per cent. poll
But with the exception of those two constituencies, how can it be argued that massive personation occurred on a scale that changed the results? As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, we should be concerned that the results show that the people of Northern Ireland are turning away from the ballot box. I hope that the Minister will produce some evidence to show that, with the exception of the two constituencies that I have mentioned, there was massive and systematic personation. If he cannot produce such evidence, he is inflicting conditions on the other constituencies that will mean that a greater number of people will be deterred or prevented from voting than lost their votes through the abuses that have occurred in the other two constituencies.
Let us consider the percentages for the 1983 general election. In some ways they were higher than for the 1982 election, but the bulk of them fell within the same range as existed on the mainland, and ranged from 64 per cent. to something in excess of 74 per cent. However, there are one or two constituencies that stand out. As one might imagine, Fermanagh and South Tyrone had an 88 per cent. poll. Mid-Ulster had an 84 per cent. poll, Foyle a 77 per cent. poll, Londonderry, East a 76 per cent. poll and South Down a 76 per cent. poll. But even then there were only six constituencies with percentages higher than 75 per cent. Only two of them perhaps give cause for concern that abuse might have taken place. The results, which are similar to those on the mainland, surely do not illustrate massive and systematic personation, or vote-stealing throughout the Province.
It is vital that we should not overestimate or over-react. Does anyone really suggest that, with the exception of those two constituencies, abuse is so great as to have affected the outcome of those two elections in total terms? I believe that personation is likely to affect only first-past-the-post elections. There is only one such election left in Northern Ireland, and that is to the House. Most people in Northern Ireland feel most strongly about that election and I think that that is why there was an increase in the poll in 1983. The people of Northern Ireland know that it is

important to vote in general elections, and they turn out with greater enthusiasm and in greater numbers than for any other elections.
We are considering the effects of the abuse, which is limited, and the consequences of Sinn Fein exploiting its total vote. If that is a correct analysis, is the Bill the proper way to deal with it? I think that it is not.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is there not an increasing real Sinn Fein vote?

Mr. McCusker: Yes, Sinn Fein does have a real increased vote. That vote has always existed potentially but Sinn Fein supporters did not exercise their franchise because it did not suit them at various times in the past 50 or 60 years.
The likely effect of the Bill will be to reduce personation and vote-stealing, but it will also deter, discourage and prevent some people from voting who would want to vote and whose vote would probably affect the outcome of elections. The Bill removes one vote-stealing exercise and substitutes another. That is the only conclusion to which one can come in the light of the statistics for the 1982 and 1983 elections.
Democracy is important. It is important to the people of Northern Ireland. In the last 12 years democracy has been threatened in Northern Ireland. Only recently have I realised how fragile it is in Northern Ireland. If people had realised how fragile it was in the early 1970s we might have been in an even more dangerous position.
Most people in Northern Ireland thought that democracy was cut into tablets of stone which were handed down and that the instruments of government must be observed. That is not so. The instruments of government are there only because people give their consent to them. We give our consent in the secrecy of the polling booth. We show our acquiesence to being governed and we make our choice about who should govern us or represent us. The right to vote in the Province, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, is the cornerstone of our democracy.
We should be glad that so many people in Northern Ireland still believe in the democratic process, although some of the poll figures cause concern. Whether or not they exercise their right to vote, Northern Ireland people are jealous of that right and of being on the electoral register. To believe that one has only to witness their reaction if they are not on the register, if they do not have a postal vote or if their vote is stolen. They blame the politicians and the political parties. We should be careful not to undermine what is left of the base and foundation of our democracy by interfering with people's cherished rights.
The Statutory Advisory Commission on Human Rights said in chapter 5 of a recent report:
Members agreed, as a matter of principle, that they disapproved of it being mandatory for voters to produce specific documents as proof of their identity, and they were also of the opinion that it was naive to assume that personators could not acquire these documents for illegal use…It should also be emphasised that documents would not be the sole means of proving identity.
I wonder whether the members of that commission have changed their minds because in last year's report they reviewed the position. Did they volunteer a change in opinion or were they unduly influenced? If they changed their opinion, why did they?
The Bill was produced as a reaction to Sinn Fein and it is likely to deprive at least some of our people of their rights as it attempts to prevent vote-stealing by Sinn Fein. The full implications have not been thought through.
One of the most chilling comments in the notes on clauses is on page 12 which states:
no-one will lose the right to be on the electoral register".
Sinn Fein does not threaten anyone's right to be on the electoral register. The document continues:
But it could result in some people not being able to vote who otherwise would have done, for example if they did not have a document prescribed under rule 37(1A)…when they went to the polling station.
The document continues:
the theoretical possibility exists that on polling day an elector who would otherwise be entitled to vote would not have one of those documents.
That is a casual way to deal with one of the fundamental rights of our people.
The main thrust of the Bill seems to be to ensure that only those who can produce one of a number of documents will be allowed to vote. I believe that anyone who can prove to the satisfaction of the presiding officer that he is the person on the electoral register should be allowed to vote. The right to vote under the Bill is conditional on the production of a document as distinct from proving that the person is the person on the register and has a legitimate right to vote. There is a vast difference because many people will be able to produce a document which will enable them to vote when they are not the person entitled to vote.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) referred to me in his speech. My right hon. Friend will have a mainland Great Britain driving licence, to which no photograph is attached. As I read the Bill, someone who managed to acquire that driving licence by stealing it from a car or picking it up somewhere could go to the polling station and say to the presiding officer, "I am Enoch Powell. There is my driving licence to prove it." The presiding officer would then have to decide whether the document shows that the person in front of him is Enoch Powell. I cannot see how that person can be refused a ballot paper.
We are in danger of giving people the right to vote on the basis of a document and depriving people of the right to vote simply because they do not have a document. I am sure that it will be equally possible to prove beyond doubt that one is entitled to vote and not be given a vote.
I could go along to a polling station without documentation, but be able to prove who I was and where I lived and produce a House of Commons pass. Under the Bill the presiding officer would be obliged to say, "I am sorry, we cannot give you a ballot paper. Go back and acquire one of the prescribed documents." That is incredible. I hope that the Government will reconsider.
Let us look in more detail at the Bill. I have asked -questions about driving licences. I asked how many full driving licences with photographs were held in Northern Ireland, and I was told that the figure was a little more than 500,000. Therefore, about half the people on the register could produce a document that would identify them, which would go some way to preventing some abuses.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that provisional licences would be as good as full licences?

Mr. McCusker: That may be the case, but there are remarkably few provisional licences available in Northern Ireland. About 500,000 people do not have driving licences, so they could not produce one when voting. Driving licences are not a sufficient means of identification. Passports could be used, but when I asked the Secretary of State how many passports were held by United Kingdom citizens resident in Northern Ireland, he said, "We do not know." I was also unable to establish how many people hold Irish Republic passports. I understand that fewer people hold Irish Republic passports—fewer than the hon. Member for Foyle would want to believe, but more than Unionist Members would want to believe.
What about the case of a Unionist living in a strong Nationalist area? That person might not want to show his passport on polling day. He might be living quietly in the area, with no one knowing a great deal about him. People will soon know something about him if he has to produce his British passport to vote.
What about a decent, law-abiding Catholic—which most of them are—perhaps working in the Civil Service—as most of them do—carrying a British passport? If that person was voting in Washing Bay, and was a well-liked and respected member of the Catholic community, the production of a British passport would put him in some difficulty. Similarly, a Roman Catholic living in a Loyalist area—again a respected and accepted member of the community—would be expected to hold a British passport. If he produced an Irish passport when he voted, that would be telling many people in the community a great deal about him.
We all know about the abuses of DHSS documents in Northern Ireland, where people obtain funds by fraudulent means. Yet those documents are accepted as proof of identity when money is handed out. Officials accept that the document belongs to the person because it is in his possession. Large sums of money are often involved. Anyone producing such a document at a polling station will have it accepted as identification.
I have a medical card with me. It gives my name—James H. McCusker of 42 Wellington street, Lurgan. It also gives the name of my doctor, R. Pedlow, 60 High street, Lurgan. Because the card has been in use for some time, it has a hole in the middle, so the "H" is not visible. I left that address 20 years ago, and left the following address 10 years ago. The doctor died 20 years ago.
At no time have I suffered because I have not had the card altered. I have always received more than adequate medical attention. There was no incentive to amend the card. I have no incentive to amend it now, other than that I might need it at a polling station because my House of Commons pass will not be accepted as identification.
Both the medical card and DHSS documents are of no real value to someone trying to prove his identity, but they can be of value to someone intent upon personating. I looked at some of my registers. I did not especially select the one from which I want to quote. The first page of this register has, in one column, a number of families with the same name—Noel J. McGrann, Noel J. McGrann; Thomas Devlin, Thomas Devlin; Desmond McCleary, Desmond McCleary. On the next page there is John McGurgan, John McGurgan; Michael O'Hagan, Michael O'Hagan; Thomas O'Connor, Thomas O'Connor; John McKeown, John McKeown; Maureen McKeever, Maureen McKeever.
If some of those people were nursing, at university or too sick to vote, there is nothing to prevent someone using their documentation. My son is also James H. McCusker. I presume that he could use my card as identification. The use of these documents could assist benign personation—where one member of a family felt it obligatory to cast a vote for another member of a family.
The production of marriage lines has already been mentioned. There is something repugnant about asking a woman to produce her marriage lines when she votes. It is asking too much. I felt so strongly about that that I contacted the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland. I might have misled it a little as I thought that a woman had to produce both her medical card and her marriage lines. I am glad to know that that is not the case. If my original understanding had been right, the Equal Opportunities Commission said that it would serve an injunction on the Government because a woman should not have to produce her marriage lines.
I still have not been given a satisfactory explanation as to why a woman should be asked to produce her marriage lines. The Equal Opportunities Commission said that she is the same person as she was before her marriage, and can claim her previous name even after her marriage.
I hope that I have managed to convince hon. Members that the Bill is dangerous. Although it may prevent some abuse, it will damage the electoral voting prospects of many others—perhaps more than those affected by vote-stealing.
I hope that no one will say that I am giving the Provisional Sinn Fein ideas. The Bill gives our enemies a potent weapon for disruption. Two hon. Members have described what will happen because of the delay in the usual processes. If Sinn Fein cannot steal someone's vote, it will be as good to prevent someone from voting for another party. I think that what I am about to describe is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Let us assume that because of the additional measures the number of booths would have to be doubled, as would the number of people employed — although £50,000 does not leave a great deal of scope for that.
Let us suppose that there are 50 dedicated Sinn Fein supporters in one area who all join together on the morning of an election and swap their medical cards, 25 for 25. Let us suppose also that the 50 go to the polling station and cast 50 votes. The consequence of that will be that 25 will personate the other 25. There will be no reason why they should be challenged at the time of voting. They will be able to return their medical cards to one another outside the polling station. There will be legitimate delays, and at about half-past six, seven o'clock or half-past seven in the evening a series of Provisional Sinn Fein supporters will enter the polling station. They will be in possession of their own medical cards or DHSS booklets, for example. Each one will set down his document and say, "That is me." The presiding officer will say, "I am sorry, but your vote has already been cast."
The House will be able to imagine how long it would take in those circumstances to deal with their synthetic indignation and protests. They would produce other evidence to prove that they are who they say they are as stated on the medical cards. They would put the presiding officer to every possible difficulty in invoking the tendered ballot paper procedure. They would tie up the voting machine to such an extent that hundreds could be prevented from voting.
I have been in polling stations in Northern Ireland where the queue has stretched out into the street. Between 9 and 10 o'clock the queue can be as long as 50 or 60. Many of the potential voters are probably already sick of what they understand democracy to be in Northern Ireland, and as it is shown to be in the poll results to which I have referred. Party workers and others will have encouraged them to produce their driving licence or passport, if they are lucky enough to have one, and they will be stuck in a long queue. By 9 or 10 o'clock in the evening many of them will have turned back in any event. We are giving another weapon to the Sinn Fein.
I hope that I shall not be criticised for putting ideas into the heads of Sinn Fein supporters. Let it be understood that they are as capable of exploiting any advantage that we give them as any other group. How can these potential dangers be avoided? We are dealing with Sinn Fein and the Bill has been introduced because of its abuses and threats to legitimate political parties.
Sinn Fein has chosen to exploit the democratic process and perhaps we should consider dealing with Sinn Fein. It could be proscribed if the Government had the courage to take that action. If the Government do not want to do that, they should consider one of the recommendations that is to be found in the Baker report. It is said that Sinn Fein could maintain its legitimacy as a political party but be prevented from fighting an election while it is pledged to support violence. If the Secretary of State has not read that section of the Baker report, I hope that he will address himself to it. If Sinn Fein was put in that position it would not be able to steal votes and there would be no incentive for it to do so.
Perhaps the only other logical alternative is to issue identity cards. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down has not fully satisfied himself how identity cards can be made foolproof. I do not think any of us have done so. If national insurance numbers were placed on identity cards and on the electoral registers which presiding officers have, that might provide a suitable cross-check. We have considered also some of the suggestions that have been made by the hon. Member for Foyle.
We can turn what is now a victory for Sinn Fein into a defeat if we handle the issue m the proper way. The fact that the Bill has been introduced is a victory for Sinn Fein. The Diplock courts are a victory for Sinn Fein and so are the informer trials. Every infringement of my liberty and the liberty of decent people in Northern Ireland is a victory for Sinn Fein.
If we give a Bill a Second Reading that will prevent ordinary decent people from exercising their franchise, because they do not have the required documents, for example, we shall give Sinn Fein another victory. Surely we should try to deny it that victory. The way to do that would be to accept the recommendation of the Baker report or produce identity cards. The issuing of identity cards may not be favoured in other parts of the United Kingdom but account should be taken of what we in Northern Ireland have had to live with over the past 15 years. Identity cards could preserve the democratic process and assist in overcoming the other abuses involving the social security system. Even better, they could help in the battle against terrorism.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: It is not necessary for the representative of an English constituency to explain


his intervention in a debate on Northern Ireland. The citizens of the Province are the citizens of the same kingdom as I am. Their problems are my problems and the problems of us all and we must all consider them sympathetically and try to be helpful. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was right when he said that the Bill concerns us all.
It has often been said that democracy is our strength and our bulwark. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) made a similar observation. We use these idioms—strengths and bulwarks—as though democracy were immovable and had deep and strong foundations. In fact, the idioms are somewhat deceptive. In many senses democracy is frail. Indeed, it is in need of positive and vigorous protection. It is frail when menaces are used, and the citizens of Northern Ireland understand menaces and intimidation. Democracy is frail when corruption is abroad. It is frail when someone steals another person's vote.
I took note of the words of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights:
The right to vote is the cornerstone of democracy.
Again, that is the granite idiom. We know what the author meant, but democracy is something more movable than a cornerstone. The chief electoral registration officer for Northern Ireland has spoken of a 
perception of a high level of abuse.
We would probably have to take some steps to put things right and to provide reassurance even if it were only a perception, but it is more than that, and in paragraph 30 the commission refers to
the need to reassure the electorate of confidence in their democratic institutions
as one of the first importance. It is more than a perception, but even the perception of abuse is readily illustrated by the fact that over 900, for sure, cast pink votes in Northern Ireland in the general election. Those are the 900 who were prepared in the presence of others to record their indignation at having lost their votes. Some, having learnt that they had lost their votes, would have been annoyed but would have withdrawn. Those people might have been timid or they might have made a prudent calculation that the odds in their community were against them and that they were not looking for trouble.
There are other abuses, but at present I am speaking only of the stealing of votes. The measurement of 900 is the minimum for one of the abuses.
We have learnt that the documents are still available for further consideration, and that the list of categories may be changed in some way. A current driving licence has limited usefulness. Not all citizens possess a driving licence. It is possible to lose a licence because some traffic offence was committed. Paradoxically, a person who commits a traffic offence may hazard his vote as well. Remarks have been made about using a passport or pension book, but not everyone has one.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) dealt extensively with medical cards. Before I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, I was tempted to suggest that a photograph should be attached to the medical card. The medical card would say nothing about the citizen's politics or allegiance. A passport refers to allegiance, but a medical card gives away nothing about allegiance. A medical card with an attached photograph might provide

an answer. We would have to consider updating the photograph, lest that politician's vanity of addressing himself by an old photograph creeps into the system.
I am less puzzled than other Members about the use of the marriage certificate. There comes a time—weeks or months—for every woman when the name by which she knows herself differs from the name on the electoral roll. Since she wishes to call herself by her new name in her new state, her marriage lines provide the reconciliation of what she thinks she is called and what the electoral register says. I should not like to look for anything discriminatory in this issue. The marriage certificate does not cause a problem, and indeed, is one of the more helpful inclusions in the list.

Mr. William Ross: What about a woman who does not have marriage lines?

Mr. Taylor: Presumably, a common law wife has a name by which she is usually known, which would be the name that would appear on the electoral register. She would have fewer problems than the woman who had recently married — [Interruption.] I cannot take the intervention of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) from a sedentary position.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Member for Solihull agree with me that the certificate of marriage signed by the officiating officer, as with the regular certificate used for all other purposes in Northern Ireland, should be used rather than the certificate issued by the Registrar-General of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman made that point forcefully when he addressed the Chamber. I concede that I understand the problem without having an answer readily at my grasp. I am not completely au fait with the rules for the registration of marriage in Northern Ireland. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that at first blush I found his argument convincing.
I have been tempted to ask, to conclude my contribution to the discussion about lists, why the birth certificate was not among the candidate documents. There is a case for including it in the list. The birth certificate is one of the most fundamental documents for identification.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): One can obtain a copy of the hon. Gentleman's birth certificate at any time on payment of a modest fee.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may have already studied the objection. His findings may provide a complete objection to my suggestion. I believe that the Government Front Bench agrees that the debate about the list is far from its conclusion. No doubt a number of suggestions will be made.
Since this is a Second Reading debate, I shall trespass and offer the opinion that another democratic entity that needs our encouragement is the Northern Ireland Assembly. Many of us in Britain would like that Assembly to prosper, acquire competence and functions and develop regular questioning of Northern Ireland Ministers. My sentiments about personation are directed as much to elections to that Assembly as to general elections in Northern Ireland and elections to the European Parliament.
As one of the two John Taylors in the House, I am well aware of some of the consequences of mistaken identity.


If I lack my namesake's native depth of knowledge of Northern Ireland experience, I certainly do not lack his correspondence. It takes me only a few lines of reading to realise apologetically that the correspondence is not for me. There are certainly colourful letters. Sometimes letters come from Philadelphia—a remarkable address for mail for the hon. Member for Solihull. As an Englishman called John Taylor, I understand the problem caused by an electoral roll, which was produced by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), which shows the commonality of names in Northern Ireland communities.
I hope that I do not lack a proper awareness of the fact that, if cheating and malpractice interfere with democratic elections in some parts of our country, the Government must act to put things right. The House should support the Government in doing so. A difference of philosophy has been shown in this debate. There are those hon. Members like myself and the hon. Member for Upper Bann—I cannot claim to speak for the hon. Gentleman—who would prefer some improvements to be made now. There are others who would like the matter to be treated once and for all. As an Englishman considering Northern Ireland affairs, perhaps I do not fully understand Northern Ireland politics. I readily concede that this is almost certainly because I have not had the advantage of living in the Province all my life; I have only been a visitor. Sometimes Northern Ireland politics seem to be rather negative.
I see an identified, obvious and undesirable abuse that we should put right. The Government are bringing forward the beginnings of a means to improve the position. The solution may not be absolute—indeed, it does not go as far as identity cards would—or sufficiently constitutionally elegant to satisfy some hon. Members. The hon. Member for Upper Bann thought that the measure would deter some personation, and I suspect that it will. The legislation will be good if it does so. We should note how the measure goes. It will be splendid if it is successful. If a further case for identity cards emerges, the Government and their supporters will have been shown to have been too optimistic, and the Government will be obliged to take further action. I shall be one of the first to ask the Government to take that further action. Having listened to this debate—I shall listen to the other contributions—I am disposed at this stage, on the balance of the argument, to support the Government.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I was somewhat taken aback when the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) wished the Secretary of State well in his new post. I also, of course, wish him well in his new post, but having seen so much of him so often over the past few weeks I had forgotten that he was a new boy. He can no longer be regarded as such. He has had little comfort during the debate. He need not expect any from me, because the net effect of the Bill, were it to be an Act today and were today to be polling day, would be that I should not be entitled to vote despite the fact that the notes on clauses presented to those hon. Members who sought a copy from the Vote Office say that the Bill does not directly bear on the franchise. It does. If it denies me my vote, it bears upon the franchise. Later I shall tell the Secretary of State how it denies me my vote.
Personation should be dealt with. Here I agree with almost every right hon. Member who has spoken. There

is too much personation in Northern Ireland. I do not take the luxury of dividing it into two sections — the personation of those who are dead and those who could not go out to vote, and the personation of the votes of those who would have voted had it not been that their vote was stolen. One category is as wrong as the other. I would make no excuse for either. Let every party in the House, whether it be Conservative, Labour or any Northern Ireland party, admit that few of us could say with hand on heart that we know of no case of a vote cast for our parties in that manner. I am sure that every one of us knows that it has happened on one or more occasions, no matter how much we may disapprove of it.
However, we must recognise that the problem of personation is not unique or peculiar to Northern Ireland. It occurs elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I recall many conversations with hon. Members with constituencies on the mainland — as we term it—who have told me of instances of personation in their constituencies. The fact that the Bill is unique and peculiar to Northern Ireland shows that the Government have deemed that there is an acceptable level of personation. We might also say that they have deemed that there is an acceptable level of some other activities. It is all right to have some personation in parts of the United Kingdom, but when it reaches a certain level we must take action.
I might argue, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr, McCusker) did, that there are many constituencies within Northern Ireland where there is a low rate of personation. I am glad to say that my constituency is one of them. I believe that no more than a handful of the pink voting papers were issued. Whether it was right to do it or not, the Secretary of State will probably find that most, if not all, of those pink papers were given because the presiding officer had in front of him a voter who went to the polling station and found that his name was not on the electoral list. He was given a pink slip to quieten him down because he was kicking up such a din in the polling station. He thought therefore that he had voted. It may not have been proper for the presiding officer to do that, but I think that it probably happened in many constituencies to get the man out through the door.
I understand the dilemma of those hon. Members who face personation on a wide scale. It is that category that needs action. Personation can affect the result of elections in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Upper Bann said—and I agree with him—that no case could be cited of a parliamentary election being won because of personation. As the hon. Member who in 1979 had perhaps the narrowest margin of victory in Northern Ireland's electoral history—I was elected by 64 votes—I am glad to hear him say that. At least it kept me clear, but, having a narrow voting margin of 64 for election to the House, I recognise that there are other constituencies where an election could be won or lost by votes stolen or personated in some other way.
I think of the electoral area represented by my colleague, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). He has a majority of 74 votes over, yes, Sinn Fein, the very people whom we would expect the Bill to deal with. Plainly in 1983, when the election to the House took place, Sinn Fein was working hard at personating in Mid-Ulster. It was only 75 votes off winning the election. I suggest that it will work all the harder at the next Westminster election to see whether it can obtain those


extra votes. Let us not think that it is impossible for an election to be swayed by the additional votes cast by those who are using personation.
There are several other constituencies where the result could be tight at the next election. Newry and Armagh would be one and Fermanagh and South Tyrone would be another. Who knows what the division in Belfast, West might cause? Those constituencies might be swung by personation. Elections other than those to this House frequently take place in Northern Ireland but under a voting system different from that used in the rest of the United Kingdom — proportional representation. I can recall an election in the south-west Belfast area where a handful of votes decided that Sinn Fein was elected. In proportional representation elections it is all the more important that restrictions are applied to ensure that the electoral system is not abused.
I have every sympathy with those who protest that Sinn Fein, and perhaps some other individuals, used this illegal activity. I want, as they do, to find a mechanism to stop that abuse.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would not suggest that the reason why personation may pertain more in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom is that there are more dishonest people in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. My experience on the mainland suggests that there is probably little difference. However, if there is, honesty bears in favour of the people of Northern Ireland. I am receiving some strange looks, so perhaps I had better clarify that remark. My experience of the mainland extends outside the House; I am not reflecting upon the integrity of any hon. Member, but that suggestion does not explain the mass personation in Northern Ireland constituencies.
I, and I am sure other Northern Ireland Members, might like to suggest that one of the reasons is that we are such colourful, likeable and charismatic characters that people are not satisfied with voting for us once; they favour us so greatly that they must vote for us many times. That may not be all of the truth. The reason may be that politics in Northern Ireland are taken a great deal more seriously than they are in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is why what the hon. Member for Upper Bann described as the more acceptable form of personation takes place—there is great loyalty to the individual and to the party which causes people to blind themselves to what is right in voting practice and to do that which they should not.
The second category of personation—vote stealing—is indulged in by those people who wish not to use the electoral system but to abuse it. After all, if people are prepared to try to gain victory by shooting others, it will cause them little thought if they try to gain victory by personation. That is a major problem in many areas of Northern Ireland.
I have some difficulty in persuading myself that it is right to introduce such a Bill as this solely for Northern Ireland. The franchise in Northern Ireland is exercised through different systems of voting in different elections. It can be argued that any election is unique to Northern Ireland; it is a Northern Ireland-only election. The system that is adopted might be different from that operating elsewhere in the United Kingdom. All those elected to the body concerned should be elected in exactly the same manner. However, when people in constituencies in this

part of the United Kingdom are allowed to vote without giving any identification, but voters in Northern Ireland are treated in a different way, when it is the same body, I find some difficulty in squaring that with the parity that should exist in electoral law throughout the United Kingdom.
I would even be prepared to thole all that, to use an Ulster expression, if I thought that the mechanism to be employed would work. I refer to the Secretary of State's attempt to disfranchise me in Northern Ireland. I said at the beginning of my speech that if the Bill were an Act, and if it had been polling day, I would not be entitled to vote. If the notes on clauses were the guidelines for the presiding officer, under the Act he would be acting outside the law if he recognised me as Peter Robinson and gave me a ballot paper. The presiding officer could give me a ballot paper only if I produced one of the items on the list, such as a medical card. I have one—I got it out last night. I have moved house five times since I lived at the address on the medical card. If I went to the polling station and asked for my ballot paper on producing my medical card, the presiding officer would see that it did not bear the same address as that on the electoral register, and he would not be entitled to do anything other than refuse me my ballot paper.
However, I have a driving licence. It has a photograph on it that would show the presiding officer that I am Peter Robinson. However, again the problem is that I have moved house in the past few weeks. The address on my driving licence is not the same as the address on the electoral register because the register has continuous registration. I do not want to hand in my driving licence until the period for the fee that I have paid—

Mr. Michael Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the best example to quote, because he is acting illegally? He is breaking the law if he does not say that he has changed his address.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman obviously is not—

Mr. Brown: I am talking about a driving licence for Great Britain.

Mr. Robinson: The question is whether I use my driving licence. I do not because I do not drive. I have a driving licence, can drive, but do not. Therefore, I do not need to change the address on my driving licence.
Therefore, again, the presiding officer would not be able to give me a ballot paper although he recognised me and would be prepared to give one to me. I also have a passport, and it does not have an address, but I have the same problem as the hon. Member for Upper Bann. In Northern Ireland, it is common that the name of the son is the same as the name of the father, with a middle name put in. The hon. Member for Upper Bann said that his medical certificate stated that his name was "James H. McCusker". My name is David Peter Robinson. There was some confusion around my house when the name David was called when we had to do the dishes, and nobody got up. So I became known as Peter. For electoral purposes, I am known as Peter Robinson, but my passport says David Robinson. Therefore, if I produce my passport to the presiding officer, no doubt he will say that I am not entitled to a ballot paper, and that he is not allowed to give


it to me because there is some doubt in his mind about whether I am entitled to vote when the electoral register says Peter Robinson.
Perhaps that is a unique case, but anyone who has moved house and not changed his documents but whose address has been changed through continuous registration, will be disfranchised unless he can meet the criteria by some means of identification that does not bear an address. That can be only the passport, and nobody knows how many passports are issued to Northern Ireland citizens.
It is strange for the Government to suggest that suitable identification would consist of a document with anything less on it than the name, address, photograph and signature of the individual. Unless the document has all four details, the vote could be given to the wrong person. I can draw only one conclusion from that. There is not one document in the list in the notes on clauses that falls into that category, yet I should have thought that it was essential to have each of those four, and certainly three—the name, address and photograph of the individual—to ensure that the person getting the ballot paper was the person whose name was on the electoral register.
However, the Secretary of State seems unwilling to allow a document to be produced that would give every elector the right to have such identification. It could be done. I would even accept it if it were only for Northern Ireland, although I would prefer it if it were for the whole of the United Kingdom. What is the Secretary of State's excuse for not being prepared to have separate identification for elections? It is that some people may not want it. I wonder who they would be. They would be the very people voting once, twice, three times and perhaps a lot more. Those are the only people I can think of who would refuse to have such identification at elections. I think, as the Secretary of State does, that some politicians in Northern Ireland, if not the United Kingdom, might want it to be used for other purposes such as security.
If it is to be a worthwhile identification, it must have all four ingredients that I mentioned. In the past few years presiding officers have laboured under severe difficulties. I know of several who must know of individuals who come in more than once to vote. They know it but are afraid to do anything about it. Will they do something about it if the person comes in and presents a fake form of identification? Will that make them have the courage to take action? I doubt it. If the Secretary of State turns his back on all of us who say, "Think again about a proper means of ensuring that personation is reduced," let him at least find some way of ensuring that people such as those in the security forces can participate in checking the identification. They would be less likely to be in fear of taking action against those who personate. There might be considerable difficulties in involving the security forces, but unless we have that involvement there will still be the possibility that either clerks or presiding officers will find it difficult — they might live in the areas from which those men come — to take the action that the law requires.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that more power should perhaps be given to the presiding officer to accept the evidence of his eyes as much as the documentation before him. That sounds like common sense, but it can be done only if there is security protection for the individual who has to judge whether the would-be

voter is entitled to vote. Otherwise, the officer might be persuaded by matters other than reason and logic to hand over a ballot paper.
On the subject of delays, I wonder how many polling stations in Northern Ireland have been visited by the Secretary of State, other Ministers or the people who drafted the legislation. In an election lasting 12 hours, from 8 am to 8 pm, especially the first under this legislation, about one third of the people coming to vote will probably have to come to the polling station twice before they can register their votes. There will be delays involved in searching for the documentation and checking identification. The clerk may wish to bring the presiding officer in for consultation. Moreover, under PR there would be a number of names on the ballot paper. Given the queues that already exist on such occasions, will everyone who wishes be able to vote? I doubt very much whether the Secretary of State could achieve that and remain within the £50,000 financial consequences identified in the explanatory memorandum because unless there are more polling stations with more staff the existing time scale will not be sufficient.
One type of document suggested for indentification purposes is a book for payment of certain allowances. I have had great difficulty in persuading many of my constituents to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. They have been very embarrassed at doing so and I very much doubt whether they would be prepared to produce their payment books to show the presiding officer or clerk when neighbours may be standing behind them in the queue.
All in all, I believe that the effectiveness of the Bill would be extremely low, although the welcome increases in penalties for impersonation might assist in reducing the number of people prepared to indulge in the practice. I suspect, however, that many IRA voters — I do not distinguish between them and Sinn Fein—would not be deterred by a six-month sentence or the kind of fine suggested in the notes on clauses.

Rev. Martin Smyth: How would the penalties be implemented if the person involved withdrew his claim when challenged?

Mr. Robinson: The constables will no doubt have power to stop people withdrawing. The presiding officer, however, may wish to give the person a second chance, as the notes on clauses magnanimously provide—"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" If the presiding officer is prepared to let the person have another go and wishes to send him off to fetch some appropriate documents while the constable wishes to restrain that person, one wonders what the result will be. Perhaps time will tell.
Although the Bill will undoubtedly make impersonation more difficult, it will make things equally difficult for the genuine voter whom we wish to encourage to exercise his or her franchise. We need legislation that will not penalise those who are entitled to exercise the franchise and wish to do so but will catch those attempting to exercise someone else's franchise. I believe in the principle of one man, one vote in this case. Funnily enough, however, those who a few years ago were on the streets demanding just that now seek half a dozen or more. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who has now left, said that there was a difference of philosophy in the debate. I believe that he was wrong. It is not a difference of philosophy. It is a difference of perception between those who represent constituencies in Great Britain and have no knowledge of personation in Ireland, whether in Northern Ireland or in the Republic, and those of us who live in Northern Ireland and have had to deal with the problem on the doorstep. It is that difference of perception, understanding and experience that sets us apart from the Government on this. I hope that in the light of this debate the Government will take the Bill away and think the whole matter through, which they apparently have not done so far. Certainly that is the impression that Northern Ireland Members received when listening to the Secretary of State.
When I first went into politics I cut my teeth keeping electoral registers right, on local elections and on being a party political organiser in my area. That was on an entirely voluntary basis but it involved taking a great deal of interest in the whole process of running elections and ensuring that my numerous political enemies did not personate. I therefore speak as one with far greater experience of this matter than most other Members because the area in which I lived then and still live now is dominated by Republicans and we have always suspected considerable personation. We thus had not only to take cognizance of that possibility but to take steps to prevent it happening, which I believe in large measure we did.
We should be clear about the reasons for the Bill. It is to stop the electoral advance of Sinn Fein. But for that perceived electoral advance, the Bill would not have been introduced and this debate would not be taking place. It is also, as a side issue, to save the bacon of the SDLP from the electoral advance of Sinn Fein.
We have heard the myth of the 20,000 impersonated votes. A number of hon. Members have touched on this but I wish to go into it again. Twenty thousand impersonated votes is 20 per cent., or one in five, of the votes cast for Sinn Fein. That is a very high percentage. I think that it would have been impossible for that number of votes to be personated, especially as the alleged personations were not spread evenly over the Province; they took place in relatively small areas and among relatively small sections of the total population.
Perhaps we should look again at the constituencies involved. One that has been mentioned several times is the constituency of Foyle, which is in my part of the world. Personation in the Foyle did not cover the whole of Foyle, but only Creggan, the Bogside, Cornhill and Shantallow—the west bank of the Foyle. We are asked to believe that the Social Democratic and Labour party is so inefficient in that area as to allow mass personation to take place, and yet the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who is the leader of that party, has told us how effective his party members were on that morning, when they turned away 50 people out of every 700.
What is the effect in the polling stations of the turning away of attempted personators? They go out and tell their friends that the game is not worth the candle because they are being challenged. There is a perception on the part of the lawbreaker about whether he will get away with it.
I do not believe that 20,000 personated votes were cast for Sinn Fein. It is a marvellous story to tell in an effort to downgrade the achievement of Sinn Fein, but I do not believe that it is true.
The hon. Member for Foyle referred to the militaristic organisation of the personation. Of course it was militaristic. That is how Sinn Fein and the IRA organise themselves. There is a carefully organised and co-ordinated campaign which can be very difficult to stop—but, none the less, it can be stopped.
What are the essentials for stopping personation? The first essential is an accurate electoral register. Despite all the nice things which are said about the electoral register today and the glowing reports put out each year by the chief electoral registration officer, I do not believe that the electoral register in Northern Ireland is one iota more satisfactory or accurate than it was before the present electoral registration system was set up.
In the old days, the electoral registration system worked through local officials — usually members of local government such as county officials—and through the intense activity of the political parties. Every political party did a certain amount of electoral registration work. When one lives and works in the places in Northern Ireland where I and some of my most energetic and assiduous colleagues have lived and worked, one makes blooming sure that the register is right. We do it street by street, name by name and house by house. We do it well, because we know the people there. The population is not so large that we are incapable of identifying the vast majority of the people. What Sinn Fein and the IRA fear more than anything else is the knowledge of the community in which they operate being in the hands of their foes. The 90 or 100 Protestant households in the Creggan estate left that estate within a few weeks of the explosion of trouble in 1969. The resulting absence of local knowledge is the reason why, ever since that time, it has been difficult for those of us engaged in that work—and my own party does much of the work for the Unionist community — to operate in that area.
I used to have my network of men and women who were not known as party workers. I visited them two or three times a year with a register in my hand and asked them to tell me which of their neighbours had died and which had left, and we were able to correct the register. Political parties in Great Britain probably do not go to those lengths. Perhaps they do not have the incentive that party workers in Northern Ireland have always had and still have. The whole concept of compiling an accurate register is difficult in a community which is solidly Roman Catholic or Protestant because, in general terms, the opposing factions are not willing or able to operate efficiently in such areas. However, there are ways in which one can compile a fairly accurate register. Most of Northern Ireland is a mixed community in which it is possible for both sections of the community to operate, and they do it assiduously and well.
In the city of Londonderry, there was at one time an organisation known as the Catholic Registration Society. It was run, virtually, by the Roman Catholic Church. The society corrected the registers with the aid of paid staff and handed them over to the nationalist party as soon as an election was called. That organisation has disappeared, and I do not believe that the present system gives us a register which is as accurate.
There was a tremendous amount of co-operation between all the political parties in those days in order to arrive at an accurate register. There is still co-operation in many parts of the Province. No party benefits, especially at present, from the appearance on the register of numbers of people who do not exist. It is in the interests of all parties to have a register which is as accurate as possible.
Not all my hon. Friends agree with me, but I believe that one of the most serious mistakes of recent years in the compilation of electoral registers is the concept of permanent registration. It is almost impossible for the political parties, which do an enormous amount of the work, to keep up with the constant checking that is necessary. They do not have a paid staff. The work is done on a voluntary basis, and it is as if 15 September arrived every month. It is very difficult indeed.
There is only one really good way to stop personation at polling stations, and that is to put people there who know their neighbours. In most parts of Northern Ireland, there are personation agents or representatives in the polling station who make sure that personation does not take place. The odd case may slip through—cases such as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) has described—but it is a minor problem, and always has been. In a mixed community, massive personation is frankly impossible, as anyone who has worked in the field knows. The Social Democratic and Labour party apparently had difficulty on the west bank of the Foyle in Londonderry but the leader of that party has told us that the party was able, in large measure, to put a stopper on the problem. Despite the early success of Sinn Fein and all its efforts, I believe that Sinn Fein did not do quite as well as it had expected out of personation. Of course there was much more personation than usual, but it would be wrong to believe that one vote in every two or three cast for Sinn Fein in that relatively small area was personated, which would have had to be the case if Sinn Fein was to gain 20,000 votes over the whole country. We must forget about the majority of the country and bring those 20,000 people to the areas where Sinn Fein was well organised and could do it on a fairly large scale. I would have accepted a figure of 5,000, or possibly even 10,000, but 20,000 is not possible. It can only be done in the areas in which Sinn Fein works freely.
Has any hon. Member thought about the size of the operation that would be necessary if a political body, or even a militaristic body like Sinn Fein, were to get 20,000 votes from the 600,000 vote cast? It would have to be a bigger operation than the entire election campaign. It could not be done, and it was not done.
The Bill was written by people who believe that they know about personation and how it is carried out, but they do not know. They do not know because they have not been down in the gutter fighting for their political lives against the personators. They do not know what it is about. They have listened to the stories, the myths and the nonsense that has been talked, but they have never been in a polling station trying to stop personation and they have never organised a political party to try to stop it. Only those who have been in the gutter fighting those people know how difficult it can be made for them.
Hon. Members have not yet mentioned the fact that there will be a shift of responsibility from the political parties to the presiding officers to ensure that such evils do not occur. I am not against a presiding officer's powers being increased, but generally speaking the most effective

presiding officer is a teacher from the school in which the polling station is set up. During the past two elections in Northern Ireland there seemed to be a tendency to move many presiding officers from the school where they taught and from the communities where they knew electors. That was wrong. It would be much better to keep those people on home ground where they know the electorate; that of itself is an inhibiting factor to the personating groups.
We should try to use local people as much as possible, but we will put the brakes on personation only if the community and the political parties are prepared to challenge their enemies and to defeat them. It is not easy, but who said that staying free was easy? Who said that democracy was obtained easily? I can tell the House that when democracy is attacked, it is not easily retained. We have to fight for it and get down into the gutter where those people live and stop them. We must do it ourselves, because no one else will do it for us. The political parties of Ulster, and no one else, will stop personation. We can be helped, but the only aids that would work are those that were described earlier by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
Personation occurs mainly in constituencies where the outcome of an election is in doubt. Who would bother with personation in a constituency such as Antrim, South or in several other constituencies when they know that the majorities are so massive that my hon. Friends would win no matter what? The only places where they try are those where there is doubt. That is where we must have positive identification that ties the individual to the name on the electoral register. It is daft to say to presiding officers, "We know that you know three quarters or 90 per cent. of the people who come through the polling station, but you cannot give them ballot papers if they do not have the specified documents." The plain truth is that the presiding officer of the clerk knows Willie Ross when he walks through the door of Dungivan school. Would he not look stupid refusing to give me a ballot paper, if I said, "I am sorry, but I cannot show you my driving licence"? Indeed, I could not at the moment, because I lost it three weeks ago and I must apply for another. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann had a 20-year-old medical card. He is lucky. I have not seen my medical card for more than 20 years, and although I have not moved house, I do not know where it is.
We should be honest about the fact that the Bill is designed to defeat Sinn Fein. We want to defeat the front men for the gun carriers and the murderers. I agree with that, but the Bill will not defeat them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann said, the Sinn Fein vote has increased and is always there. The Secretary of State might be interested to know the results of general elections in Northern Ireland during the past 30 years. In 1950, two Sinn Fein candidates got 23,000 votes. In 1955, when Sinn Fein was the only nationalist party standing, it got 152,000 votes for 12 candidates. In 1959, after the IRA had started the 1956–61 murder campaign, 12 Sinn Fein candidates got 63,000 votes. In 1968, 14 candidates received 102,000 votes.
In Northern Ireland, there has always been a potential Sinn Fein vote of between 70,000 and 120,000. The figure varies depending on the circumstances or the time, but it has not changed much during the past 30 or 40 years, and there is no reason to believe that it will change. It grows and diminishes, but it does not do so because actual Sinn Fein support grows or diminishes; it does so because of the


circumstances, the other candidates, and the perception of the electorate as to which candidate of their general tribe is the more likely to win.
Another way of defeating Sinn Fein, which should be put into effect, whether or not identity cards are introduced, is to get rid of proportional representation. The system has allowed extremists to say to the population, "Vote for me first, but in case I do not do well you should go down the line and make sure that the person with the views closest to mine wins." Sinn Fein has been allowed to exploit to the maximum its latent support in the community by this means.
If we return to the first-past-the-post system, elections will be a bit of a mess at first, but less of a mess thereafter. If we are to get rid of Sinn Fein, let us start squeezing them where it hurts—let us squeeze the people who vote for them and let us make them make the choice. At the end of the day, the people in the community will group round their natural centre and if that is to the right of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), that is a matter of small concern to me. On the other hand, his persuasive powers are such that he might still represent the majority view of his party. If the Government are intent on beating Sinn Fein into the earth, as they say they are, they should take the steps that will start doing that.
The Bill has been introduced with the most astonishing haste and is being shoved through the House far too quickly, before either the Secretary of State or the House has had time to think the thing through to see whether it will have the desired effect. It is a case of, "Let us do something—it does not matter what, but we must be seen to do something." That is worse than doing nothing at all, because things that do not succeed in doing good can succeed in doing harm. We have seen that time and again.
For heaven's sake, let us stand back look at the problem and think again. Will the Secretary of State not be too dogmatic, because what is at stake is the democratic process in Northern Ireland? At the end of the day, the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland depends on him. Will he stand back and spend his weekend reading what has been said by hon. Members today and then think again and change his mind?
I am not saying this in any party political sense. What I am saying springs from a deep and enduring understanding of the way of life in Ulster, of the activities of those who personate and the desires and the efforts of Sinn Fein to destroy democracy. I want to see the would-be destroyers destroyed, rather than being rendered victors through a mistaken, misguided effort in this place.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I apologise for being absent for part of the debate. There have been some elections in another part of the Palace of Westminster, in which personation is completely impossible.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) both gracefully complimented my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and welcomed him to his responsibilities. My right hon. Friend's hon. Friends would not wish to be backward in also wishing him well, and we shall help him as best we may.
There is general consent for the purpose of the Bill. The House wants personation stopped wherever it may appear, in elections in any part of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made an impressive speech and implied that this is really a Bill to stop Sinn Fein, rather than personation. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is not here, although he has spoken. I make no complaint about his absence, but I thought that he was the main, if not the only, begetter of this legislation. His party has been the most vociferous in demanding action.
The Irish News of 2 November reported that Mr. Joe Hendron, the SDLP Assembly Member for West Belfast said:
The many thousands of people who have had their votes stolen in recent elections will be delighted at the good news"—
of the Bill—
as also will the hundreds of SDLP personation agents who have been in the frontline attempting to stop personation. The SDLP now looks forward to fair elections and the verdict of the people in 1985.
The House should be glad to respond to the desire of constitutional nationalists, and also of other democratic parties, to be able to compete on fair terms for the votes of the electorate. It is true that there are now those in the political arena who are concerned neither for democratic process nor for democracy. Provisional Sinn Fein is determined—this is the burden of the SDLP complaint—to replace constitutional nationalism by revolutionary republicanism, not just in the Six Counties but in the 26 counties. The not honourable but absent Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) called those 26 counties a potato republic.
In Northern Ireland, the Provisional Sinn Fein boasts of pursuing its aim and imposing its will by a dual policy of blood and ballot: the Armalite in one hand and in the other a ballot paper—one's own, or somebody else's, be he dead or alive. The Provisional Sinn Fein is an elitist conspiracy against parliamentary government and representative democracy, so one should not be surprised if the Provisional Sinn Fein, with its increasing efficiency and organisation, has elevated the old practice of personation to a higher plane of organised malpractice.
However, we must not think of it just in terms of the grievances of the SDLP. Concern is felt by all constitutiońal parties and honest citizens who wish to protect the probity of the electoral system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and some hon. Friends and I myself met its chairman, Mr. James O'Hara, only the other day. The commission has recommended a measure on the lines of this Bill. In its report, dated 1 October, in paragraph 27 I find these words:
At the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 26 persons were arrested (mostly in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone and the Belfast North and Belfast West constituencies) for the alleged offence of personation and 762 tendered ballot papers were issued (mostly in the Belfast North and Belfast West constituencies). The Commission understand that 149 persons were arrested on polling day of the last general election and of these 108 were subsequently charged. The number of tendered ballot papers issued was 949, more than half of which were in the constituencies of Foyle and Belfast West.
The Secretary of State has said that about 20 to 25 per cent. of the Sinn Fein's vote can be accounted for in terms of malpractice.

Mr. Beggs: We have heard the last comment several times. Is it not conceivable that, so that the SDLP can


disguise that it has done so badly and that its former supporters were really Sinn Fein supporters, it has made the excuse that the votes were lost by personation?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I was merely quoting to the House the figure which I heard the Secretary of State give us, that there was this very high proportion of fraudulent votes cast for provisional Sinn Fein.
We heard the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). We have now heard the intervention from the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). It would be helpful to the House if we could have some further comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) if he seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill. The Gracious Speech foreshadowed and the Secretary of State mentioned today a Representation of the People Bill. That will be a United Kingdom measure. The question in my mind is why the provisions in this Bill could not have been included in the Representation of the People Bill ahead of us.
It is not as though personation is confined to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East suggested that those of us representing seats in Great Britain had no acquaintance with personation. But we have. I remember in the last general election one of the leading Conservative councillors on the Epping Forest district council going to her polling station only to find that her vote had already been recorded. For such cases as come to light there are many others. This is an abuse which occurs in every part of the United Kingdom and in some parts of the United Kingdom more than others.
To legislate as though the abuse were confined to Northern Ireland makes people unfamiliar with the Province imagine it as at best eccentric and at worst almost ungovernable, whereas those who go there—and more hon. Members should go there—prepared for their visits only by what they see or hear on the mass media express surprise that so much of life is so normal and that so many people are completely law abiding at election times as well as at other times.
It has been suggested that personation in Great Britan is an Irish custom which has accompanied immigration from Ireland and elsewhere. Be that as it may, I deprecate the persistence of successive Governments in the unnecessary duplication of legislation by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Government supporters are always being told that it is the aim of our leaders and of our Whips to have a lighter legislative programme. I think that it is the temptation of Whips sometimes to keep the boys busy. So we legislate on dog licences first for Northern Ireland and then for Great Britain.
In this case, is Northern Ireland being used as the laboratory for an experiment, to be followed by similar legislation for Great Britain? Is that perhaps what is in the minds of the Northern Ireland Office, or is it just one more example of the differentiation of Northern Ireland from Great Britain, which is so injurious to the cause of the Union and to morale in Ulster? Is it part of that obsession in the Northern Ireland Office with the separate sanctity of the Northern Ireland statute book — what might almost be described as a bureaucratic Sinn Fein? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will understand that this treatment of Northern Ireland as a special case—an extraordinary province different if not

all that distant from Wales, Scotland and England.— causes Unionists to mistrust the professions that we are always hearing that the Union is safe. This in turn impedes good relations with Dublin by rendering suspect the most innocent and mutually advantageous intergovernmental exchanges.
Since personation is not confined to one province of the United Kingdom, there could be a single Bill in which the matter was dealt with, and this is not such a Bill. I do not see on the Treasury Bench any Minister from the Home Office, but I imagine that the Home Office is studying the Bill and what may follow from it.
Some years ago I proposed that every citizen should provide himself or herself with an identity card bearing his or her photograph and signature. I was denounced for fascist tendencies by the Daily Mirror, and I have been denounced today by the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said that on no account would the people of the United kingdom tolerate any return to identity cards.
When identity cards were voluntary in this place, I obtained one. I found it useful and convenient and a protection. I found it useful to be able to identify myself rather than to have laboriously to satisfy vigilant security people that I meant no harm and would do no damage. Are we in this place second-class citizens—we who have by resolution of the house decided that we should have identity cards?
Some form of identification bearing the holder's signature and photograph is the key to the identification of a voter in an election. It would be much better to have a single document to check the bona fides of a voter than the prescribed documents which are mentioned in the notes on clauses, which have been mentioned and circulated by the Secretary of State and which are to be the subject of regulations.
Driving licences have been mentioned in the debate as one of the presented documents. In Northern Ireland at least a driving licence bears a photograph of the holder. But I suppose that there is nothing to stop a voter in Northern Ireland presenting the driving licence that he has acquired while sojourning in Great Britain. Medical cards do not carry photographs, and I ask whether they cannot be easily forged.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned passports. It will be sufficient to produce a United Kingdom passport or a passport of the Republic of Ireland. Both carry photographs. But there might be some difficulty in strongly Republican areas about producing a United Kingdom passport, and perhaps in strongly Loyalist areas about producing a passport of the Republic of Ireland. Hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will know better than I whether that is the case.
There is no doubt that the provisions of the Bill will make polling a complicated business. I have seen with my own eyes the queues and the disorder arising from queues at polling stations in the Bogside and the Creggan. I am glad that the Secretary of State said that his mind was not closed and that he would consider all the arguments put forward in the debate.
Clause 6 refers to expense. Although the notes on clauses suggest what might be the additional cost. I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if my hon.


Friend the Under-Secretary of State tells the House in the Chamber so that it may be on the record what additional staff will be required.
On clause 3, it will also be interesting to know why a person should not be deemed to have committed the offence with which the clause deals if he has possession of documents in advance of polling day. If preparations are being made for massive personation, why will the clause apply only to the possession of documents on the day of polling? There may be a good reason for it, but I shall be glad to hear about it from the Minister. In endorsing the principle of the Bill we must ensure that it is effective. The points that have been raised, while they are Committee points, are of the greatest importance. My question, which I hope my hon. Friend will answer when he replies, is: will it work?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has brought a little more realism to the debate by reminding us that this problem is not peculiar to Northern Ireland. I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) say that if there were personation in England there would be an outcry. I can assure him that it is not an accepted fact of life when it takes place in Northern Ireland. There is an outcry.
After two recent elections, supporters of the Alliance party came to me angrily because their votes had been pinched. A rector's wife was highly annoyed. Although there has recently been a high number of tendered ballots in West Belfast and Foyle, people do not normally bother because at that stage it is too late anyway. It is only relevant if there is to be an electoral court to test the validity of the election. It must be recognised that to go down that road, as we have discovered, causes other problems. I think of the genuine challenge in Armagh when a candidate was returned who was not validly nominated according to the law of the land. The reaction of the community as a result of that electoral court can still be found to this day.
I do not believe that the practice of personation is a new venture. If my memory is correct, there was an allegation that the former Member for Belfast, West received many personated votes. Evidence was provided, but despite that the matter was never taken to the electoral court because of the psychological obstacle to trying to unseat a person in that way. People imagine that it is a challenge to the vote. We must face that. To say that people can tender a ballot which can then be tested is flying in the face of reality. We should try to deal with the matter a little better.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has managed to get away from the fog of Belfast. I welcome him on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench as a spokesman for Northern Ireland. It was the self-same fog which kept me from being present when the Secretary of State opened the debate. I apologise for the fact that I did not hear all his speech, only the end of it. What I did hear, and the subsequent arguments in the debate, at least encourage me to ask whether the Government, before the Committee stage and before they use their undoubted weight in the House, will think again. While the measure applies to only part of the

United Kingdom, it opens up principles which could be applicable to all the United Kingdom. Therefore, I feel strongly that some of the provisions need to be re-examined.
Perhaps on a political level we might be a little more honest than some other parts of the United Kingdom when we recognise the presence of personation. Everyone would like to see it minimised, if not completely obliterated. However, I doubt whether the measures here proposed will accomplish that objective.
Speaker after speaker has pinpointed the haste in presenting the Bill. There has been some improvement in the documents suggested, but we still have at least a reflection of the earlier list that was put out for discussion, when, among other things, a rent book was suggested as a valid document for claiming one's vote. The civil servants who designed that list for the then Secretary of State forgot that in certain parts of Belfast and other parts of Ulster people gladly give away their rent books. It would not necessarily be a valid means of identification.
There is a desire to increase participation by the electorate. Forgive me if I felt a tinge of cynicism when reading some of the background papers and hearing comments in the debate. All that seems to be important is that we have our name on the franchise. If people cannot exercise their vote, that is another matter. It is our obligation to make it easier rather than more difficult for people to exercise their franchise. The bright people in other constituencies of the United Kingdom might have no problems, but I have met constituents going to vote who were unsure whether they could exercise their franchise because they had mislaid their polling cards. If they are sensitive at that level, what will happen if we list a variety of documents that have already been proved incapable of substantiating the identification of a particular person? It will increase the confusion of the average citizen, who will wonder whether he can vote without a particular document.
I at least ask that greater consideration be given to the plea that there should be a common form of identification. It would be useful to have it throughout the United Kingdom. I know that the libertarian lobby will come out against that. But at the heart of our democracy is not only the right to be on the franchise but the right to exercise that franchise if it is to be meaningful. Therefore, if we are to restrict some liberties in Northern Ireland to protect us from some evils, we should at least consider extending that protection throughout the United Kingdom.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West expressed concern about the role of the police and the powers of search in the Bill. The clauses dealing with those issues could be misunderstood dramatically by many. On the other hand, I welcome the fact that the Bill gives some power to the police which until now has not obtained in electoral law.
Time and again policemen have been on duty outside polling stations who are trained to observe. They regularly saw people going into polling stations two or three times, but they were not allowed to comment on that fact. Time and again people asked me why the police were not maintaining the law and why they let people into a polling station to vote more than once. The trouble was that the police had no power. That power rested with presiding officers who, for various reasons, failed to issue the


requisite challenges. We must strengthen the power of presiding officers to challenge those whom they suspect of personation.
The Government's proposals will have a minimal effect on the alleged militaristic approach to the stealing of votes. Those who currently abuse the system will speedily devise new methods of abusing it. If we are anxious to deal with those who, in the words of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) carry the Armalite in one hand and a stolen ballot paper in the other, we must urge the Government to implement the Baker report's recommendation of banning those people from political life until they disown violence. I would go further and proscribe such parties. That would also solve other problems and it would give us time to work out a method of identification to safeguard electors in all parts of the United Kingdom. The Government's blunt instrument will be counter-productive in the long run.

Mr. Michael Brown: The Bill, which I support in principle, has been introduced with the best of intentions. The previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it clear to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1982 that he thought that personation was a problem and that he would like to reach agreement with the parties participating in the Assembly on how to deal with it.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that personation, which could distort election results in Northern Ireland, is abolished or at least minimised. We should thank Northern Ireland Ministers for recognising that there is a problem and that all the constitutional parties in the Province want to deal with it.
When I first read the Bill, I thought that hardly any hon. Member could oppose it. I have listened to a number of speeches and I understand the opposition of some Northern Ireland Members, but, in fairness to the Secretary of State and his colleagues, we ought to accept that the Government are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. We do not have identity cards at present, the Bill will apply only to Northern Ireland and the Government are trying to make voting not much more difficult than it already is in Northern Ireland — I know that many people have difficulties in voting.

Mr. McCusker: The hon. Gentleman talks about the benefit of the doubt, but does he not believe that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the person who probably has the right to vote, rather than to the Government, who may be preventing that person from voting?

Mr. Brown: I concede that point. There is a problem of personation and, in trying to deal with it, we will inevitably place a burden on the overwhelming majority of citizens in the Province who want to exercise their democratic rights. I do not know how we can solve that problem unless we deal with it on a nationwide basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) was right to point out that, although there is not much personation in the rest of the United Kingdom, many hon. Members will know constituents who have been unable to cast their votes and, certainly in England, are nc5t aware of the tendered vote process.
The Bill presents difficulties and perhaps the Government should conclude from the debate that even after the Bill has become law the Home Office should consider the problem in a United Kingdom context.
I join those who have suggested that the idea of identity cards is no longer taboo. Circumstances have changed since the war. All hon. Members have an identity card which carries their photograph and signature and could include their address. The introduction of such cards would be an ideal system if the Government considered the problem on a United Kingdom basis.
However, an immediate problem faces the Northern Ireland electorate. It is because the problem of personation has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years that Northern Ireland Ministers have recognised that there is an immediate need to deal with it. They have not shown undue haste, but they are bringing the Bill forward quickly because they wish to ensure that the disgraceful practice of personation is controlled by the time of the next elections in Northern Ireland.
I agree with the hon. Members who have mentioned the difficulties presented by the prescribed documents. However, when we attack the inadequacies of those documents, we have to answer the question that is bound to be posed by the Secretary of State, which is, "What other documents could be used?"
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) suggested that there could be a greater role for the poll card. Every elector on the register is sent such a card. It says on it that it is not a requirement that the person should take it to the polling station. I recognise that this may be a matter for the Home Office rather than the Northern Ireland Office, but those prescribed documents might be more acceptable if there was a requirement to take the polling card along to the poling station. Indeed, everyone in the United Kingdom is sent a card.

Mr. McCusker: I say it in the nicest possible way, but the hon. Gentleman is demonstrating his ignorance of the situation in Northern Ireland. Polling cards are easily available in the Province. Indeed, one of the incidents that, I believe, brought the whole issue to the Government's attention involved the RUC stopping a minibus in Fermanagh and South Tyrone during one of the recent elections. It contained people from the Irish Republic—some of them from as far away as County Cork—who had fistfulls of polling cards for people in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone electoral area. They were clearly on their way to personate those voters.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It was an idea that was put forward from the perspective of an English Member of Parliament, and in England that is not a problem.
However, there is another problem which, sadly, the Bill does not deal with — voter registration and the inaccuracy of the electoral register. In the United Kingdom any elector has the right to be registered in more than one place. I am registered as an elector in the London borough in which I live when I am attending to my parliamentary duties, but I am also registered as a voter in my own constituency. It is illegal for me to vote anywhere other than in my constituency or in the constituency in which I live in London. I am convinced that in Northern Ireland many people may be registered in more than one constituency and probably cast votes in more than one constituency.
I wonder whether there is any purpose in giving people in the United Kingdom the right to be on more than one electoral register. I say that with reference at least to parliamentary elections, although it would be difficult perhaps to differentiate on the electoral register between local government and parliamentary elections. The Home Office should consider that point, because that may be one of the problems in Northern Ireland. However, perhaps it should be considered in the wider context of electoral reform and the Bill that will be introduced later this Session.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) gave us a critical analysis of the prescribed documents. He drew attention to clause 1(2)(1B) which provides:
Where a voter produces a prescribed document, the presiding officer or clerk to whom it is produced shall deliver a ballot paper to the voter unless the officer or clerk decides that the document raises a reasonable doubt".
But one of the main problems about these documents, which was raised first by the right hon. Gentleman and later by other hon. Members, is that, for example, a voter may use his medical card which contains his name but which bears an address that does not correspond to that on the electoral register. In all honesty the voter can take his medical card along as a prescribed document. But he may have moved several times since the medical card was issued, and if the lack of correspondence between his addresses is seen as something that gives rise to a "reasonable doubt", he may be deprived of his vote. However, the date of birth will also appear on the medical card and that might help in some small way to allay some of the fears expressed by the right hon. Member for South Down.
As I said in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) it is illegal not to notify the appropiate authorities if the address on a driving licence—whether it be a United Kingdom or Northern Ireland licence—is inaccurate. However, that does not detract from the arguments that have been put about the difficulties involved in these prescribed documents.
I shall vote for the Bill because its intentions are entirely honourable. We should pay tribute to the Government for recognising the problem and introducing legislation. However, I hope that the Northern Ireland Office will take careful note of the voices that have been raised against the Bill, because they are based on the experiences of those who have to stand as candidates using the electoral system in Northern Ireland. They have already foreseen, in a way that I have not, some of the dificulties that will arise. Therefore, I hope that the Northern Ireland Office will give due credit to some of the arguments that have been raised against the Bill. If, after one or two local government or parliamentary elections, it appears that the prescribed documents do not satisfy the intentions of the Northern Ireland Office or of hon. Members, we may have to consider a much wider reform in the context of the whole of the United Kingdom, with the Home Office introducing proposals that involve the possibility of the citizens of the United Kingdom holding identity cards.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: As several hon. Members have said, personation as we know it has always

been a fact of life in Northern Ireland, where a few ardent supporters of a particular candidate might try to obtain an advantage by voting more than once. However, the practice was never considered widespread and the number of votes obtained by that process was minimal in proportion to the number of votes cast. That was the situation until the paramilitary groups decided that the political arena would be a desirable platform from which they could don a cloak of respectability and at the same time use the process in an effort to enlist sympathy for their cause.
Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that such groups do not have the electoral support that the results of previous elections would suggest. One has only to witness the blatant vote-stealing that goes on at polling stations in various electoral areas to know that such behaviour can produce a result that is completely contrary to the electorate's wishes. As has been said, the right to vote is the cornerstone of democracy, and I am pleased that the Government have now recognised that that right must be protected.
I support the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) when they say that electoral abuse is not peculiar to Northern Ireland and that the various safeguards outlined in the Bill could have a much wider application. I understand that there have been many reported instances of electoral irregularities throughout the United Kingdom, and now that the nettle has been grasped, I should have thought that such legislation could be applied throughout the United Kingdom.
During elections, I have personally witnessed carloads of vote-stealers invading polling stations in areas where conditions were tailor-made for electoral abuse. Those areas contained large concentrations of derelict and blocked-up houses because the population had moved because of redevelopment plans. Voting regulations enabled the votes of the previous occupants to be stolen. Groups of dedicated paramilitaries had reconnoitred the area, identified the vacant properties, compared them with the electoral register and, having confirmed that votes were applicable to the properties, conducted a well-organised vote-stealing campaign. Groups of personators descended on the polling stations and, using disguises and candidates' election addresses as a form of documentation, demanded voting papers. Some succeeded.
The constables on duty at polling stations are well aware of what goes on. On the some occasions they try to halt the personators, but lack of evidence and lack of authority make that difficult.
Polling agents sometimes challenge individuals but they are often verbally abused. In some areas presiding officers are not over-anxious to take appropriate action. If the offender leaves the station without casting a vote, that is the end of the matter.
The Bill recognises the situation. Clause 3 lays down grounds which will allow the police to act in a more determined manner to apprehend personators. I welcome that. I am pleased that the Bill also contains provision for the searching of vehicles when it is suspected that they are being used for personation purposes.
Care must be exercised over the impartiality of presiding officers and their clerks because of the responsibilities thrust upon them. Reports have been made about intimidation. That accounts for their unwillingness to challenge personators.
The strengthening of police powers will instil confidence in the polling stations, but pressures can be applied in Northern Ireland on a person's everyday life by those whose declared aim is to disrupt or destroy our democratic system.
There is an inherent risk that the requirement to produce proof of identity will alienate some voters. We cannot rule out the possibility that some people may never again exercise their right to vote and will be lost to the democratic process. I hope and trust that voters will realise that the measures proposed are designed to protect their votes and their electoral rights. If the electoral process is discredited people will be dissuaded from voting. I am sure that voters will believe that we are trying to provide a sound electoral process, free from manipulation.
The prescribed documents have been chosen because they are available to all electors. The word "available" worries me. The ready availability of some of the documents will encourage unscrupulous paramilitary vote-stealers to borrow such documents so that they may vote for a particular candidate. Supplementary benefit and pension books are particularly easy to obtain by third parties. Elderly or infirm people in particular often ask others to collect their benefit. The documentary evidence could be used for purposes which were never intended.
Medical cards are also a problem because they are readily available. An elderly person could be persuaded to give up the card in the belief that the candidate of their choice would receive their vote without the need to make their way to the polling station. That will apply particularly if the polling station is inaccessible.
More attention should be given to the siting of polling stations. In my area, the electoral officer seems deliberately to put polling stations in the highest positions. That makes it almost impossible for senior citizens to attend. At the last election, it was pathetic to see the elderly, many of them on crutches or walking aids, struggling to negotiate inclines which would exhaust the able-bodied. By the use of such stations, many pensioners and infirm people are denied the right to exercise their franchise. The way is left wide open for manipulators to engage in exploitation, to the detriment of the democratic process.
One method of ensuring that democracy operates is that which is accepted in many countries, most recently in Nicaragua. After voting, the voter is required to have his thumb stamped with a dye which disappears after two or three days. It is a painless and simple operation which would be accepted by an electorate which was aware of what is happening and which is as anxious as we are to uphold the right to vote.
I have talked to my constituents and not one has voiced an objection to that suggestion. They say that in view of the abuses of the system, they appreciate that extra conditions may be required of them before they exercise their right to vote. They prefer that system to producing identification documents.
In an eloquent speech, the hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned ID cards. The issue of identity cards would be a major change and raise fundamental questions of principle, particularly in Northern Ireland, but ID cards would deal effectively with personation and be of immense value on security and social fronts. Many of us will remember the identity cards carried during the last war. They were essential for the safety of the nation. Northern Ireland is at war. Law-abiding people will certainly not

object to carrying ID cards. Citizens of many other countries carry such cards in their social security documentation.
Other matters must be considered, such as including a resident's date of birth on the annual registration form. That would assist in the identification of personators. Electors should be required to state their date of birth, but that information need not appear publicly on the electoral roll. It need be included only on the central register and on copies used by clerks alt polling stations. We need to examine the Bill in detail.
In general, the electorate of Northern Ireland will appreciate the need for such a Bill and the reassurance of confidence in democratic institutions.

Rev. William McCrea: I support right hon. and hon. Members in their expressions of fear about the inadequacies of the Bill. However, we must express our appreciation to the Secretary of State for so clearly setting his mind to such an important matter. The legislation's intention is honourable. We must express our thanks to the Government for recognising such a serious problem in the Province.
I represent a constituency where a few votes can affect the outcome of an election. I have a majority of 78, and I know how many votes were personated by the Sinn Fein. Therefore, there is some urgency to the matter. I must warn the Secretary of State that this legislation could be rushed-although, I accept, with the best intentions—but rushed legislation and rushed law is not in the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom.
The problem of personation — or vote stealing, to give it its honest title—has a long tradition not only in Northern Ireland but throughout Ireland. The old maxim of "Vote early and vote often" was heard in our childhood during election campaigns. Physical resurrections are common on election day. I have great reverence for the best book of all, the Holy Bible, which speaks about a day of resurrection. I assure the House that that was never intended to be election day.
Such old phrases as "Lend me your coat to vote" are funny, but there is a serious aspect. Many of those in Republican circles sit around the pub table proclaiming their heroism because of stealing a vote, thereby not permitting someone to vote. During the last election, a priest aged over 50 in part of my constituency could not get to the polling booth. However, a 17-year old, claiming that he was the priest, voted for Sinn Fein. I know of a hard-working Protestant family from outside Omagh—a father, mother and four sons—who returned from a hard day's work and went to vote, but found that Sinn Fein had taken their votes. Six of my constituents were robbed of their right to choose a Member of Parliament.
Regardless of the lighthearted manner with which the subject is often treated, it is a serious problem. It takes on a more sinister aspect during each election. Vote stealing is as well organised by Sinn Fein as are other crimes committed by fellow gangsters in the IRA. Violence at polling booths, and intimidation of polling clerks, party workers and presiding officers are prevalent. In West Belfast on one occasion Sinn Fein thugs literally took over the polling station. Party workers can find themselves in a dangerous position. To challenge personators is to risk their lives. I pay tribute to my party workers during the


recent general election. They challenged members of the Sinn Fein, who recently appeared in court and were fined for personation.
The problem must be dealt with effectively. The Secretary of State has estimated that as much as 20 per cent. of the Sinn Fein vote is stolen. A party that has no reservations about supporting, and even participating in, murder would have no compunction about engaging in wholesale theft of votes. All political parties in Northern Ireland have been calling for action to stop that and to prevent the open flouting of the law by Sinn Fein and its supporters.
Right hon. and hon. Members support the call for action and have endorsed wholeheartedly the principle underlying the legislation. However, we must address our minds to the question whether the legislation will work and whether it is the legislation that we need. I agree with the increase in fines and prison sentences. I trust that the court will impose maximum sentences as a deterrent to those considering stealing a vote. Often derisory sentences have been handed out. Those who take part in such organised theft know that they have little to fear.
My main reservation about the measure is that the documents suggested for identification are insufficient to prevent vote stealing. Many of them have no photographs and a number, such as medical cards, can be easily copied. I have always supported the introduction of identification cards, which would include a photograph and several other details. They could be punched or marked when a vote had been cast. There could be different marks for different elections. That system operates in some universities where student union cards must be produced and marked before the ballot paper is handed over.
I listened with interest to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) about dye on the thumb. Knowing the IRA, it would not be past its ingenuity to obtain a product to remove the dye. Indeed, there may be a great increase in the number of thumb suckers during an election.
Other hon. Members on both sides of the House have dealt adequately with the failure of the legislation to deal with this most important matter. However, I recognise and commend the work of the Secretary of State in considering this serious problem. Sinn Fein is the real concern of constitutional politicians and parties. It has no respect for either the ballot box or democracy. It is my honest, considered opinion that to permit Sinn Fein to stand in and use the democratic process makes a mockery of the ballot box. It should not be allowed to exploit both the Armalite and the ballot box.
Constitutional parties know that it is hard enough to get people to vote on election day. It is not the intention of the House to stop those who genuinely want to vote and choose their representatives. I trust that there will not be any undue hindrance put in the way of those who have a right and a desire to vote.
While constitutional parties find it difficult to persuade people to vote, Sinn Fein is ready to use the ballot box and to claim a great number of votes that it has stolen on election day. I trust that the Government will grasp the nettle and proscribe Sinn Fein. That will stop it using the ballot box with one hand while holding the Armalite with the other. I trust that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will give us some hope in that direction. The

people of Ulster are crying out that the body called Sinn Fein should no longer have the right to stand for elections until it renounces the Armalite and violence and turns its back upon them.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I should have liked wholeheartedly to welcome the Secretary of State to his new post. I should have done so if he had introduced a better Bill as his first piece of proposed legislation. I hope that a change will be made in the near future and that I shall soon have an opportunity to welcome him wholeheartedly to his new post as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The majority of reasonable and decent people in both sections of the community in Northern Ireland are honest and upright citizens. They are suffering from what I describe as election fatigue. In many areas fewer voters are turning out to exercise their democratic right. As they withdraw from participation in election processes, so the door opens wider to admit those who use and abuse the democratic process to promote selected candidates who are sponsored by organisations which have contempt for the high ideals of freedom, justice and democracy. There is a need to rationalise the system, especially one which in Northern Ireland requires elections to be held to choose representatives for district councils, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the House of Commons and the European Parliament. All these representatives are chosen in separate elections. We are fortunate in Northern Ireland to have one year in five that is free from elections.
The opportunists who personate in a militaristic manner have many opportunities to practise and perfect their skills in vote stealing. The principle that each elector is entitled to exercise his or her vote, or right to vote, in an election is a right and just principle. It is our responsibility to ensure that what is right in principle can be practised, and that the conditions necessary to protect the principle are perfected here in Westminster in legislation. I think that we are all agreed that the abuse of personation must be stopped in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. On this occasion we are merely asking the Government to give us a realistic method of identifying an elector who wishes to exercise this franchise and to protect that voter from personation by another.
There is always some truth in wisecracks and legpulls. The slogan "Vote early and vote often" is in itself an incitement to personation. We cannot get away from the fact that using the votes of the dead, those who are absent on holiday or those who for other reasons are unable to exercise their own vote is no different from stealing the vote of someone who supports an opposing party. Both acts are equally dishonest and deplorable.
Considerable moves have been made in Northern Ireland. There used to be a hue and cry daily about discrimination. There have been many boundary commission reports implemented in recent years. Changes have been accepted and there is now no gerrymandering of ward or constituency boundaries to advantage the Unionist majority. Indeed, there appears to be positive action or discrimination to weaken the influence of the majority in Ulster. That is one reason why many in Northern Ireland do not exercise their right to vote and thereby afford opportunities for personation. There is resentment that Ulster is the only part of the United Kingdom which is forced to use proportional representation for council, Assembly and European elections. The


majority in Northern Ireland believes passionately that only those practices that are good enough for the mainland should be used in Northern Ireland. Proportional representation is obviously not good enough or acceptable for the mainland and the system should be scrapped in Northern Ireland, even though that would not contribute much to reducing personation.
If the Government believe that by introducing the Bill in its present form they will prevent the widespread personation that is practised in Northern Ireland, experience will prove the Ulster Unionists right, as has happened time after time. We get no satisfaction in the House in saying, "We told you so." This is a matter of which Members representing mainland constituencies have little experience as yet, and I emphasise "yet". That was true also of attacks on policemen by the criminals among picketing miners. The mainland has not had much experience either of petrol bombs being thrown at policemen by mobsters, despite the fact that that force, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, is admired throughout the world by law-abiding citizens. It is not worth while tinkering with legislation to prevent personation. The Government must be ruthless in their determination to prevent the abuses that have recently occurred. Vote-stealing is only another card in the pack of those who supplement their funds through bank and payroll robberies and raids on post offices to promote revolutionary change and to destroy democratic systems and institutions.
Proper identification with a photograph or the signature of the holder attached to the card could prevent, or at the very least substantially reduce, personation. It could help to reduce the fraudulent collection of benefits, pensions, and so on when documents are stolen. Probably more than ever, in 1984 people are accustomed to having cards, passes and some type of identification with them. Such election cards — I do not want to refer to them as identity cards —— could last for up to 10 years. The holders who present authentic identification would be assured of the right to exercise their vote.
Even in my constituency—one to which reference has been made—where there is a low turnout, there is some evidence of personation. It is true to say that what as occurred in parts of my constituency where there was a head-on assault by another ally of Sinn Fein—people masqueraded as Irish Independents — has happened elsewhere. I know of one case where a son was alleged to be a strong supporter of an extremist group. He voted before his father came home from work, thereby disfranchising his father. Such abuse can create many kinds of problems, not only between parties but within families.
Prescribed documents that have no attached photographs are useless and should be avoided. The greatest alleged offenders and exploiters of personation are members of Sinn Fein, and we should not be under any illusion about the fact that restricting organised personation will have any impact on Sinn Fein's campaign. Sinn Fein seeks no mandate through the ballot box for its murderous campaign. Danny Morrison has already said that Sinn Fein will take power in Ireland, in the north now and in the south later. Perhaps that will happen sooner rather than later in the Irish Republic where economic and social conditions provide a nursery for revolution. I trust that the Government will think again about this Bill and accept our suggestions

Mr. James Molyneaux: During a debate only a few weeks ago, I suggested that too much had been made of what we mistakenly regard as the electoral advances of Sinn Fein. I said that I could never fully understand the near-hysteria — "hysteria" is the only word that I could use—that swept Whitehall and Fleet street in the immediate aftermath of the Assembly elections in 1982. That hysteria occurred for the simple reason that Sinn Fein had achieved 64,000 votes. My puzzlement arose because, in 1921, in an election for the first Northern Ireland Parliament—the election was held in the same area and under exactly the same conditions, with proportional representation and all the rest of it—Sinn Fein received 104,000 votes. During the 60 years in between, Sinn Fein's support peaked and dipped On occasions, Sinn Fein representatives have won seats in this House. So what? They do not attend; they do not take those seats.
At the general election in 1983 Gerry Adams won the seat for Belfast, West, and again, I say, so what? He does not attend. The interests of the people of Belfast, West are looked after in the House by Ulster Members occupying other seats and by hon. Members representing seats in Great Britain, because we all take part in the great national debates. Only one elected Member out of 650 neglects and fails to do his duty. To a great extent, individual constituency cases in Belfast, West are dealt with by those of us who represent constituencies on the borders of that constituency.
Sinn Fein election victories are nothing new. Its absenteeism from the place to which it was elected is nothing new and nor is there anything new in it neglecting its parliamentary duties.
If the purpose of the Bill is to contain and curb the growth of electoral support for Sinn Fein—even bogus support and bogus growth — an alternative is to demonstrate that Sinn Fein duplicity will not work. It cannot and will not be accorded facilities that enable it to claim that results can be achieved by a combination of political and terrorist methods.
A commendable pattern has been firmly established by the Minister of State who refused to meet Sinn Fein members of a deputation only two weeks ago. I do not say that he is alone in that. I hope that his behaviour on that occasion is typical of what we can expect from the Secretary of State and all his colleagues. If Ministers, Departments and statutory bodies—it is important to include that leg of the stool—were always to remember that Sinn Fein representatives regard the Armalite as more powerful than the ballot box, and that the ballot box is regarded by them as an endorsement of their campaign of murder, matters would be put in their proper perspective. Sinn Fein has deliberately chosen the alternative of violence and force. It should not be given the added bonus of being able to pretend that it is genuinely elected.
Sinn Fein's strength, such as it is, results from its being able to play things both ways. I hope that the Minister of State and all his colleagues will put a stop to all that.
The Secretary of State was right when he listed all the electoral malpractices and abuses, and we join him in saying that the joking has to stop. We all hoped and expected that the draftsmen could have provided an effective measure. I do not necessarily suggest that it should be 100 per cent. effective, because we can never


achieve perfection in this wicked world, but surely to goodness they could have come nearer the target than the provisions contained in the Bill.
The Secretary of State drew attention to what he regarded as the significant abuse of the Assembly elections in 1982. He probably chose the worst example of the mythical increase in Sinn Fein votes because in that election, which set Whitehall and Fleet street agog, Sinn Fein achieved only 64,000 votes. The Secretary of State seemed to be saying—he will correct me if I heard him wrongly—that safeguards were greatly tightened so that by the time we reached the 1983 general election, vote-stealing and personation were much less a feature of that election result.
If we study the figures on that occasion we shall see that, despite the increased safeguards, the Sinn Fein vote increased from 64,000 to 102,000. To confirm what I said about the peaks and dips of Sinn Fein's electoral fortunes, it slumped back, in what must have been for it an alarming fashion, in the EC election this year.

Mr. Scott: I know that we are all anxious to get on, but I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made exactly the opposite point. It was that at the general election in 1983, in our judgment, Sinn Fein made the most sustained and determined effort at personation.

Mr. Molyneaux: I can accept that. It is correct that Sinn Fein made that effort, but that does not destroy the validity of the point that I was making. The alarm and the panic seemed to set in for no reason that I can understand. I am sure that Ministers were in the same puzzled state about why there should have been all the alarm and despondency about Sinn Fein getting a mere 64,000 votes at the Assembly election.
The Secretary of State mentioned holiday votes and the possibility, which I hope has now receded, of Northern Ireland being deprived of holiday votes when the Home Secretary's Bill is considered later this Session. If the Home Secretary were to be unwise enough to carry out that threat and to refuse to grant holiday votes to Northern Ireland, he would issue an open invitation to vote-stealers. If they were certain that John Simpson, his wife and two of his family were in Majorca for two weeks, they could go to the polling station, no doubt equipped with a convincing medical card, driving licence and so on—presumably the passport would be abroad on that occasion —and get away with it. I hope that that certainty will be removed by allowing holiday-makers to vote for themselves.

Mr. Hume: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if a postal vote were given to holiday-makers from Northern Ireland, the door would be wide open to total corruption of the electoral system? Once one gives holiday-makers a postal vote, every single voter has the right to a postal vote. There would be no control over voting if one granted that to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: When we consider the Home Secretary's Bill, I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) will be here and will have an opportunity to speak to illustrate that. If one considers the six most marginal constituencies in Great Britain, one sees that they

have a high proportion of postal votes, simply because so much depends upon the postal vote facility. What is in fact proposed in the Select Committee's report on the Representation of the People Act is the granting of an alternative method of voting. I hope that hon. Members on this side of the water will set their faces against it.
The Secretary of State said that some form of identification was needed. We agree about that, but we differ on its effectiveness. Perhaps in the coming weeks we can put our heads together and devise a foolproof method.
We must take effective action to safeguard the democratic system, as the Secretary of State said, and I agree with him. We agree that every effort must be made to find an effective system. The debate has shown that there is widespread agreement that in the Bill as currently drafted we have not come near to finding it. It was that difficulty in finding any form of effective system of identification that caused the delay, to which the Secretary of State legitimately referred, in bringing forward legislation in the reign of another Secretary of State. Unfortunately the present Secretary of State has been landed with this baby. The difficulty in providing an effective form of identification rather than an unwillingness to stamp out vote-stealing was the problem all along. That is even recognised by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) wondered whether the 1983 general election results might have been different if there had been no vote-stealing. I think that it will be generally recognised by those who have studied the statistics that even if personation and vote-stealing had not been on the scale on which they were generally supposed to have been, and the Bill had been in force, it would have made no difference to the outcome in the 17 seats.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful for the opportunity to elucidate what I said if it was not clear. I specifically said that I was not suggesting that the result would have been different in the last election, but the margins were so narrow that one could imagine it being different in some future election as a result of vote-stealing.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that clarification.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also seemed to chide me for my comments in the debate on the Gracious Speech when I said that we were prepared to accept that safeguards might be necessary but that it should be recognised that that also applied to various other areas of the United Kingdom. I was referring to complaints made in the House in July by Members representing certain areas of England and Wales. I pointed out that there had been fairly recent instances of personation on a significant scale in the island of Great Britain and that the franchise had been abused there as well as in Northern Ireland in recent elections. Proof of that was furnished by Members representing those areas.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: In Leicester there was definite evidence of personation and I believe that the same was true in other cities. In areas of multi-occupied housing, or with a large ethnic community, there is a temptation and under the present system there is no definite means of disproving the entitlement to vote of a


person who appears at the polling station with the relevant polling card. There is no way of proving that he is not who he says he is.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful for that confirmation of the fears expressed on that earlier occasion, which I know are shared by many Opposition Members. I hope that by the end of our protracted deliberations on the Bill we shall all be a great deal wiser and able to devise means of eradicating this plague from the whole of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) rightly said that the House should not be asked to approve the Bill without seeing the regulations. Without the regulations the Bill is meaningless, so it is vital that we should have sight of them in definitive form before the end of the Committee stage, let alone the remaining stages of the Bill. The documents listed in unofficial form are all documents that the citizens is not legally required to hold. If their holding is a condition of the right to vote, what is the objection to stipulating that an effective identity card must be held and produced?
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down pointed out that party representatives and agents were prevented from examining the documents of proof and thus from giving any view on the validity of the claim that the person presenting them was indeed the person named on the register. Whatever the drafting, and whatever the intention may have been, the role of party agents is bound to be reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made that quite clear. Representatives of candidates have a vital role to play in the democratic process at general elections and indeed other elections.
Enough has already been said in the debate to illustrate the ineffectiveness of all the documents so far listed. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House clearly fear that the Bill in its present form may make the situation worse rather than better. If by any mischance our amendment is defeated and the Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House and if the Committee begins next Tuesday, we shall bear in mind the Secretary of State's undertaking to consider what has been said in the debate so that changes can be made, presumably in the list and the regulations, before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. However, the Secretary of State cannot be expected to come to any conclusion in the 120 hours that remain before the commencement of Committee stage on Tuesday. The Government have now set their hand to this measure, the object of which we all support in principle. Perhaps they might consider beginning the Committee stage next Tuesday—if they feel that they must do so—but, with the agreement of the business managers, allowing a reasonable period to elapse before the House is invited to complete the remaining stages of what is generally admitted to be an ill-thought-out Bill.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I apologise for my absence from the House earlier this evening. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) explained, I was in Belfast. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made some kind references to my visit. After my recent appointment as a Front Bench spokesman on Northern

Ireland affairs, I wanted to make an early acquaintance with Northern Ireland. I was able to see a great deal in a short time, to speak a little and to listen a great deal. Those who live in Northern Ireland will find that I shall visit the Province frequently and that I shall be sympathetic to their problems.
I have listened to the debate with some care, and it seems to me that the elected representatives of Northern Ireland are apprehensive about losing the baby with the bathwater. There is concern about personation and about illicit practices connected with the ballot box, but hon. Members are not entirely sure that the Government have found the right way to proceed. They want to protect the democratic system but at the same time to be sure that there is no prejudice to that system.
The Government have an obligation to ensure that electoral results in Northern Ireland are not distorted by personation. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) pointed out that he owes his seat here to a majority of 78. There are in Northern Ireland four constituencies where the majority is less than 3,000. We are dealing with an important point of political principle, but any change can and will have serious effects. We are dealing with a fundamental right to vote, and that fundamental right must be inviolate.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) told us that he did not believe that 20,000 cases of personation took place. The Secretary of State prefaced his remarks with the words "some observers believe". He was right to do so. I spoke to an electoral officer in Belfast, and he told me that he believed that personation could not in any practical sense surpass 1 per cent. of the vote. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that tendered ballots returned amounted to 762 and 949 votes respectively in the last two elections. As he said, those figures might represent the sum total of those who felt sufficiently exercised to register a tendered ballot paper by way of protest. Whether the figure is one in five, or 1 per cent., I do not know. However, in his report of 1982–83, the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland declared:
It is most difficult to ascertain the actual level of personation that takes place. What is clear however is that there is a perception of a high level abuse and accordingly the present legislation appears to be inadequate to meet the needs of the situation.
He added that there should be consideration of changes in the arrangements for postal votes. The Government take that point, and I understand that they are making provision for a tightening-up of procedure with relation to postal votes, through the Representation of the People Acts. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) was anxious about his constituency. He seemed to base that anxiety on the concept of definite evidence about multiple-occupation dwellings. I draw his attention to the remarks of the chief electoral officer that evidence in Northern Ireland was elusive. Was the hon. Gentleman espousing the theme that was found in the speeches of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs—Davison) and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that there is a move to separate Northern Ireland from Great Britain, and that the personation proposals, which do not relate to the mainland, are part and parcel of the concept of a separate policy? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity in Committee to expand those points.
The Opposition believe that the Government are determined not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
They want the checks and balances which every Government must have when dealing with legislation, and they want to ensure safeguards. The prescribed list, which will be produced during our proceedings, will be an attempt to define the documents that will be required. The tendered ballot paper was considered to be a safeguard, but it is not nearly strong enough, and there will be a challenge by way of the election petition.
The Bill appears to broaden the mechanisms of local and European elections. Those who will take part in the Committee, who have proposals for the documents that might be produced at the polling booth, will no doubt wish to take into account the fact that the Government have introduced the proposals, not to keep the whips or the business managers busy, but to get the legislation on the statute book in time for the May elections. However, having seen what the House of Lords did with the GLC election proposals, the Government might have been afraid of them. They might still have something up their sleeve with this legislation, although I understand their desire to get it on the statute book earlier rather than later.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest sought to assimilate, as he often rightly does, as it is a view that he strongly holds, the fact that elections in Northern Ireland should be the same as those on the mainland, but there will always be particularities in Northern Ireland elections which are different from our country —[Interruption.] That was a slip of the tongue, although not a Freudian slip. In his first election campaign in Northern Ireland the slogan of the right hon. Member for South Down was, "Keep Britain out", although he was referring to the EC.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman if I informed him that, according to the Department of Trade and Industry, Northern Ireland is part of Britain and its inhabitants are British for statutory purposes.

Mr. Bell: I would not dispute what the right hon. Gentleman says. I recall the debate in the House on 7 July, when the right hon. Gentleman said:
The rule has been never to allow Northern Ireland to cease to be separate from the rest of the United Kingdom." —[Official Report, 7 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 459.]
I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's views with great care, and I note that he produced the most non-sectarian vote of the election, which no doubt he will remember. In that election, only 7 per cent. of Conservative candidates mentioned Northern Ireland in their election address. If it is any consolation to Conservative Members, only 5 per cent. of Labour candidates referred to it in their address, and only 2 per cent. of Liberal candidates referred to Northern Ireland in their address.
The Westminster elections are the only ones in Northern Ireland with the single-Member seat relative to the majority system. In all the others, the single transferable vote form of proportional representation is used. Therefore, in Northern Ireland, elections have a seperate agenda. Election campaigns have their own content, their own issues, and personalities which, in the words of two political commentators, Mr. Butler and Mr. Cavanagh, were a world apart from Smith square and Walworth road. As the Secretary of State said, our

elections in this country—I repeat the word because we are talking about a country, as Northern Ireland is a country—

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are worlds apart from Smith square?

Mr. Bell: I have not been that far, but in relation to the Northern Ireland election I am not sure that they have a particular role to play.
The Secretary of State said that there is not in our country—I repeat the words that I used at the beginning — paramilitary interference. We must take that into account when we consider Northern Ireland and its election problem. The Secretary of State also said that he would listen to the comments and proposals that may be made when the Bill goes into Committee. I can testify that the Secretary of State is a good listener, having spent 59 Committee sittings with him, on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
The Opposition believe that the appropriate course is to support Second Reading and to make representations in Committee. The objections that have to be put, and the proposals on documents that may be raised, will best be made in Committee. We also welcome the increase in the public expenditure. The Opposition always look forward to Government pronouncements of more public expenditure, and £50,000 is being made available for additional polling equipment and staff.
On balance, the Opposition believe that it is right to bring in legislation on personation. It is right for the Government to seek to balance the obvious desire not to interfere with the right to vote with an attempt to limit the insidious disease of personation, which can influence and prejudice the results of the ballot box.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I welcome the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) to his new responsibility for Northern Ireland. I am delighted to hear him, and I look forward to keeping in close touch with him over the work that inevitably lies ahead for those concerned with these matters. I am also delighted that he was in Belfast last night. He will come to know that, in the winter months, one cannot always guarantee that one will be able to return on time. I congratulate him on his speech tonight.
We have had an important debate about an important Bill. Franchise and the voting system are central to the basis of our democratic system. Two responsibilities rest on our shoulders in looking after that system. The first is to see that the franchise can be freely exercised by all those who are entitled to it. The second is to protect the fairness of the system, both because it is essential that it should be seen to be fair, because its reputation is part of the base upon which it is founded, and because to deprive an elector of his vote is a blow to the concept of democracy. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) described the practice of vote stealing as a poison within our democracy which, if allowed to flow unchecked, would have the same effect as a poison.
The justification for the Bill rests on the Government's judgment about the extent of the personation which has occurred in recent elections in Northern Ireland and on the


representations made to us by all the constitutional parties in the Province. I shall be dealing with both these matters, but before I do perhaps I can deal immediately with the problem of the documents which are listed.
As was to be expected, the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) went straight to the heart of the matter when he raised various aspects of this part of the Government's proposals. Although the list of documents is not a part of the Bill and we intend to publish it in due course in an order, nevertheless the Government felt it right to include the list in the notes on clauses so that the House might discuss them in today's debate and so that the Government might take account of the various matters raised by right hon. and hon. Members.
I have to be frank with the House. I cannot say that I am 100 per cent. certain that at the moment we have it right. After all, we are moving into totally uncharted waters. The best judgment that we can make is that the list is about right, but I cannot say that after we have had some experience it will not be necessary to amend or modify the list.
The Government were urged to have the list ready by Tuesday when we came to the remaining stages of the Bill. Subject, of course, to our wish to listen to the discussions in another place when the Bill goes there, it is sensible for the Government, having heard the arguments in today's debate, to be able to give the Committee a considered view of our position before embarking on the remaining stages. As I have said, the House already has the proposed list.
We had to draw a balance. We did not want the list of documents drawn so tightly that there was a danger of disfranchising electors. But we did not want it drawn so widely and loosely that it would simply be a cover for the continuation of the activities of those who wished to undermine the electoral system. That was a difficult judgment, hut I think that we have it about right.
If we are determined to get this legislation in operation in time to tackle the problem by the next local government elections in May 1985, the approach outlined in the Bill is about the best that we can do. But obviously we shall review the experience of that election and see whether any amendment needs to be made to the list.
A number of hon. Members made great play of the impact of clause 1 on the document produced and the judgment which had to be exercised by the presiding officer in cases of doubt. The clause refers to doubt about whether the voter is the person whom he represents himself to be. It does not, as some hon. Members seemed to believe, require the presiding officer to follow blindly the evidence of the document produced. He can look at the name on the document, where appropriate, at the photograph on the document and, where appropriate, at the date of birth on the document. He is not required to take notice of the address on the document. He is also required to use his own common sense in deciding whether he has a reasonable doubt that the person is the person he represents himself to be when asking for his ballot paper.
If right hon. and hon. Members feel that we have not got the wording of the clause right to achieve that end, we can turn our minds to it in Committee. I am advised that the wording has the effect not of asking the presiding officer blindly to follow the evidence of the document but of enabling him to apply his common sense and judgment in coming to a conclusion whether in practice there is a reasonable doubt.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made various suggestions for improving the system of electoral registration and tightening it up in such a way as to make personation much more difficult. It might be possible to arrive at something that was virtually foolproof. We, and in particular the chief electoral officer, continually strive to find ways of tightening up the accuracy of the register in Northern Ireland. The Government's mind is certainly not closed to the suggestions that have been made during the debate. However, those are not steps that could practically be taken in advance of the local government elections in May next year.
Some hon. Members made particular play of the medical cards, one of the documents that the Government have suggested. I freely acknowledge the limitations of that document. However. the situation will improve because over a period the old-style medical cards are being replaced by a new computer-produced document. That will be much more difficult to forge and better suited to proving the identity of an elector. The medical card is available free and universally to Northern Ireland electors. Obviously, as has been pointed out, there would be considerable advantages in restricting the documents on the list to those with a photograph, the driving licence and the passport, but they would certainly have disfranchised substantial numbers of electors in Northern Ireland, particularly in the poorer sections of the community. Therefore, while accepting that the use of the medical card for that purpose had limitations, we thought it right to include it in the list.
Hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the problem of the marriage certificate. After the original approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) to the parties concerned in Northern Ireland, the Government made an early decision that it would be right to restrict the documents to official documents issued by a Government Department. Starting from that premise, one can see that it would not be right for us to include those marriage certificates which are issued by ministers of religion who carry out marriages in Northern Ireland.
However, in a sense, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We recognised his point in coming to our conclusion about the marriage certificate. The House should bear in mind the fact that the gap between the qualifying dates upon which a register is compiled and the time when the register comes into effect is some five months. If the lady concerned had been married early in that period, it would be perfectly possible for her to have obtained a certificate by the time that the new election register came into effect. There would be a sustained advertising campaign to inform such people of the need to have one of the documents available when they go to the polling station.
On the other hand, if the lady had got married only a short while before the time when the register came into effect, she would certainly have in her possession one or more documents in her maiden name. The advertising campaign would have alerted her to the need to hang onto those until she got a marriage certificate in her new name. In practice, there is not likely to be a problem. We bore in mind the points made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North when coming to our conclusions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the certificates are Government documents and are issued to the minister of religion by the registrar general? They are exactly the same as the certificates that he issues.

Mr. Scott: But they are not completed by the Government and formally issued by them. The documents are issued by the minister of religion and, therefore, they are outside the ground rules that we set for ourselves in deciding what documents to use.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Can the hon. Gentleman help by explaining the purpose of the reference to the fifth document? If the lady's name on the register is her maiden name, no query will arise about her identity. If she is asked to give her name and state whether that is a true statement, she will be entitled to identify herself as the person on the register. What service do the marriage lines perform?

Mr. Scott: If the lady has changed her name, the marriage certificate is clear proof that she has been through the marriage service, and her new name will be on that certificate. This is a Committee point. We can discuss these matters and decide what the list should be. However, it seems sensible that there should be such a provision for a woman who changes her name in the period between the qualifying date and the publication of the register.
A number of doubts have been raised about the evidence of personation. I was flabbergasted to hear the reported comments of the electoral officer in Belfast. They certainly do not accord with our experience or with that of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland over the past three or four years. We have no doubt that from the time of the 1981 by-elections in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which occurred at the time of Republican hunger strikes, widespread electoral malpractice has been deliberately and systematically employed at elections in Northern Ireland by those who are not prepared to leave their electoral prospects to the whim of the electorate.
The Government have received representations from all the constitutional parties, which are gravely alarmed at the undermining of the democratic process which that malpractice has involved. The Government received a number of representations from the political parties, especially after the general election in June 1983, when the most sustained and deliberate effort was made to subvert the electoral system. From a number of press reports and discussions with those involved in elections, the consensus seemed to be that about 20,000 votes were stolen in Northern Ireland at that general election. That figure was very much in line with the private estimate that the Government had made.

Mr. McCusker: But does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the systematic stealing of votes was confined to about one third of the constituencies in Northern Ireland? Indeed, the main problem was probably confined to only two or three constituencies.

Mr. Scott: That may be true, but I cannot see us applying these necessary proposals to counter personation to a smaller unit than the political entity of Northern Ireland. I see no case for extending them more widely. I accept that the problem tends to be concentrated in certain areas. One would be surprised if it were otherwise.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, it is impossible to put an accurate figure on the level of electoral abuse or on personation—or plugging,

as it is known in Northern Ireland. However, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said that the assessments that had been made were generally accepted figures, and that level of abuse cannot be tolerated. Reasonable steps, such as those that the Government are putting to the House, must be taken before the next Province-wide elections to reduce the opportunity for vote-stealing.
The Government have been accused of hastily preparing and rushing through the Bill. That cannot be sustained. It was on St. George's day 1982 that my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney wrote to the parties in Northern Ireland expressing our concern about the extent of electoral malpractice which we were told was going on, and giving an idea of what the Government had in mind. Since then, we have had a constant dialogue with the different parties in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State and I informed the House of the broad lines upon which the Government were thinking. We did not expect everyone to agree with every proposal, but there was every opportunity for the parties to make such representations as they wished as they saw the Government's ideas developing.
Over the past two and a half years it was right to consider very carefully what further measures, including those requiring a Bill, should be introduced before the local government elections in May 1985. We were urged by some quarters to take such measures before the European Assembly elections this year. Indeed, until the last few days I understood that the Ulster Unionist party was in favour of action to reduce the scope for personation. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley will recall that in September 1981 he wrote drawing attention to what he called widespread electoral malpractice in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone byelections. He also wrote to the Attorney-General expressing his concern.
At this time last year, the Ulster Unionist party was in touch, and made three approaches to the Government urging that there was a need to introduce some form of identification prior to a ballot paper being issued to a voter. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is also on record as calling for some form of identification to deal with personation. Thus, we can at least agree that there is no disagreement between us about the end that we should have in mind. The disagreement is limited to the practical means by which we can bring it about within the timescale that we face in meeting the local government elections in May 1985.
The right hon. Member for South Down predictably and forcefully made the point that the Bill should be applied throughout the United Kingdom, if it is to be applied anywhere. But there is no evidence of widespread electoral abuse at the moment in Great Britain, although we listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) said. Obviously, the Home Secretary will listen to any such representations, but no real representations have been received by the Home Office to suggest that electoral abuse is widespread in Great Britain. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the number of tendered ballot papers and arrests for electoral malpractice on this side of the water is so small that the Home Office does not even keep the statistics centrally.

Mr. Peter Robinson: There is no evidence of widespread electoral abuse in half of the constituencies in Northern Ireland so why apply the legislation to them?

Mr. Scott: With great respect, I pointed out earlier that there is widespread electoral abuse in Northern Ireland and we cannot apply the legislation to an area smaller than the political entity of Northern Ireland. That should be common ground between us all.

Mr. Bruinvels: rose—

Mr. Scott: Of course I regret the need for another difference between the electoral law on this side of the water and that in Northern Ireland, but let us not pretend that in other respects the electoral law in Northern Ireland is exactly the same as that which obtains in Great Britain. There are several very substantial differences, many of which were introduced by Northern Ireland Governments before direct rule. So there are differences, and it is accepted that there should be between the two systems.
However, the House must decide which is the lesser of two evils: to have another difference between the electoral system in Northern Ireland and that which obtains here, or to allow the democratic process to be undermined by those who seek to poison and destroy it. I have no doubt about what decision I would ask the House to make. The right hon. Member for South Down made another point that is, in a sense, included in the amendment. It is suggested that the whole burden of responsibility should be placed on the shoulders of the presiding officers by giving them greater discretion to deal with these matters. Presiding officers are temporary, voluntary officials drawn from the general public. We should not ask them to become involved in the inter-party contest. It would not be right for them to be given general discretionary powers of disfranchisement. Presiding officers would not welcome being given such powers. The parties must protect their candidates' interests and the RUC, which now has powers to intervene, must be able to take action against a personator. It would not be right, fair or proper to put that extra burden on presiding officers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) talked about multiple registration. That is not permitted in Northern Ireland for local and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West referred to police powers. Before the next election, as before any election in Northern Ireland, there will be the closest consultation between the chief electoral officer and the RUC chief constable. The police are aware that the police being involved in the electoral process is a sensitive matter. I am sure that they will behave with sensitivity. We shall monitor what happens and remain in close touch. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to raise the matter.
Hon. Members mentioned the extra polling booths to be provided. The judgment about the extra money required was taken after the closest consultation with the chief electoral officer. He said that extra help was needed on that front.
I do not have a closed mind on polling hours. If hon. Members believe that polling stations should stay open an extra hour or two because of the provisions to prevent personation we shall take their opinion into account before coming to a final view. To ensure that electors in Northern

Ireland are fully aware of the need to produce certain documents at the polling station, a sustained advertising campaign will be launched.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked about tendered ballot papers for those not on the register. That should not arise and we shall draw the attention of presiding officers to his view. If a person is not on the register he certainly is not entitled to vote, either with a proper ballot paper or a tendered ballot paper.
I was asked whether a document issued by a foreign country should be accepted. The franchise for this Parliament extends to citizens of the Republic of Ireland. I see no reason why a passport issued by the Republic of Ireland should not be included.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked why the offence of having documents for the purpose of personation should be restricted to polling day. The reason is practical. Polling day is the day on which those who wish to subvert the democratic process would collect their documents. If they were caught with them on that day it would be easier to prove that they had them for the purpose of personation.
The Bill represents a departure from the traditional British way of holding elections. I regret the need to introduce it, but that has to be balanced against our determination to reduce the opportunities for personation. The Bill will be widely supported in Northern Ireland by those who have studied what has happened. I commend the Bill to the House and urge hon. Members not to vote for the reasoned amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 170.

Division No. 9]
[10 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Forsythe, Clifford(S Antrim)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.(S Down)


Kilfedder, James A.
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


McCrea, Rev William
Skinner, Dennis


McCusker, Harold
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Madden, Max



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. William Ross and


Nicholson, J.
Rev. Martin Smyth.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Buck, Sir Antony


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Conway, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Coombs, Simon


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, John


Benyon, William
Couchman, James


Bermingham, Gerald
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, John
Dover, Den


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fallon, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Franks, Cecil


Brinton, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Galley, Roy


Browne, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bruce, Malcolm
Garrett, W. E.


Bruinvels, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony






Gregory, Conal
Powley, John


Ground, Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hampson, Dr Keith
Raffan, Keith


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Rifkind, Malcolm


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Harvey, Robert
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hayes, J.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Haynes, Frank
Rowe, Andrew


Heddle, John
Ryder, Richard


Hirst, Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Scott, Nicholas


Hume, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lang, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Ivan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Speed, Keith


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Speller, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spence, John


Lester, Jim
Spencer, Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Macfarlane, Neil
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacGregor, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McWilliam, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marlow, Antony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Mather, Carol
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mellor, David
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Walden, George


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Watson, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Watts, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Whitfield, John


Newton, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Norris, Steven
Winterton, Nicholas


Onslow, Cranley
Wolfson, Mark


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wood, Timothy


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard (Herts SW)



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. John Major and


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading).

The House dividede:Ayes 167, Noes 14.

Division No. 10]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, William


Amess, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Blackburn, John


Ashby, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Bell, Stuart
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Bellingham, Henry
Bright, Graham





Brinton, Tim
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Browne, John
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Bruce, Malcolm
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Bruinvels, Peter
Moynihan, Hon C.


Buck, Sir Antony
Newton, Tony


Butterfill, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Norris, Steven


Cash, William
Onslow, Cranley


Chope, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Ottaway, Richard


Clegg, Sir Walter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Conway, Derek
Pawsey, James


Coombs, Simon
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Cope, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Couchman, James
Powley, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dorrell, Stephen
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dover, Den
Raffan, Keith


Durant, Tony
Rhodes James, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Rifkind, Malcolm


Evennett, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Fallon, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Franks, Cecil
Rowe, Andrew


Freeman, Roger
Ryder, Richard


Gale, Roger
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Galley, Roy
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Scott, Nicholas


Garrett, W. E.
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Grant, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gregory, Cooal
Skeet, T. H. H.


Ground, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hampson, Dr Keith
Speed, Keith


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Speller, Tony


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Spence, John


Harvey, Robert
Spencer, Derek


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hayes, J.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Haynes, Frank
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heddle, John
Stern, Michael


Hirst, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hume, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lawrence, Ivan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Terlezki, Stefan


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lester, Jim
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lightbown, David
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Lilley, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Waddington, David


Macfarlane, Neil
Walden, George


MacGregor, John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Watts, John


Maclean, David John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


McWilliam, John
Wheeler, John


Major, John
Whitfield, John


Malins, Humfrey
Wilkinson, John


Malone, Gerald
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Marlow, Antony
Winterton, Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Mather, Carol
Wood, Timothy


Maude, Hon Francis
Yeo, Tim


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Meadowcroft, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mellor, David
Mr. Ian Lang and


Merchant, Piers
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Meyer, Sir Anthony





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Kilfedder, James A.


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
McCrea, Rev William






McCusker, Harold
Robinson, p. (Belfast E)


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Maginnis, Ken
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Nicholson, J.
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisely, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross and


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Rev. Martin Smyth

Question accordingly agreed to

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ELECTIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act, resulting from the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be paid out of, or charged on and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund under any other enactment.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HERITAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee —[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Dr. Alan Clift

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Jack Ashley: One of the basic tenets of British justice is that every convicted and discredited man is entitled to a fair hearing, and if new evidence emerges, he has a further entitlement to a new hearing. It is on those grounds that the case of Dr. Alan Clift should be raised in the House.
The main grounds for concern are that some eminent forensic scientists are claiming that Dr. Clift has been wrongly discredited, both by the judge and by the Home Office, that he was a victim of malice, and that the Home Office failed to carry out proper procedures and so denied Dr. Clift elementary justice. Important information on those issues has been provided by the scientists themselves, and through investigative journalism by Tim Crook of Independent Radio News.
This issue is naturally of great importance to Dr. Clift, and the rights of individuals always concern this House. In addition, Dr. Clift's story has wider implications. The controversy surrounding him reflects the conflicts that undoubtedly exist about the role of the expert in the legal process. Those conflicts must be resolved if we are to have a healthy legal system. First, however, the truth of what happened to Dr. Clift has to be established—and that can only be done by an independent inquiry investigating the full circumstances.
I am asked why I am now taking sides with Dr. Clift after being critical of his work and pressing vigorously for a review of all the cases with which he dealt. My answer—and I emphasise this—is that I am not taking sides with Dr. Clift, but I believe that it would be unfair and grossly unjust completely to accept the public discrediting of a leading Home Office forensic expert now that there is such a weight of distinguished dissent against it. I believe that Dr. Clift ought to have an opportunity to clear his name, that we are all entitled to the truth, and that the only proper recourse is to an independent inquiry.
The independent inquiry should look at four separate areas of concern.
The first is the validity of Dr. Clift's public discrediting by Lord Justice-General Emslie in Scotland, hearing the John Preece appeal. I wish to make it clear that I am in no way suggesting that John Preece was wrongly cleared. The obvious weakness of the case against him was shown by the fact that the prosecution did not proceed with its case at the original English magistrates hearing. He was extremely unfortunate that his case was subsequently pursued in Scotland, where a jury majority of nine to six is sufficient for a conviction. Whether John Preece's justified release should be so dependent on the discrediting of Dr. Clift is a different and more controversial issue. Lord Justice-General Emslie condemned Dr. Clift as a witness whose accuracy, fairness and objectivity could not be relied upon. He did so or two grounds.
First, Dr. Clift had been categorical at the trial that the man who had intercourse with Helen Wills before her murder was a group A secretor. The judge noted that two of the experts giving evidence for the Crown at the appeal disagreed with the theory that led Dr. Clift to this conclusion and, to use the judge's words, they made it clear that the two propositions on which it depended had


no "scientific validity." However learned a judge may be, he has to rely on other experts if he wants to criticise an expert, and so it was in this case. Amazingly, Professor Kind, one of the two experts cited, is now saying:
The judge got it wrong".
and
He did not understand.
Dr. Kind claims that he did not condemn Dr. Clift as was suggested and that there is public evidence to support Dr. Clift's theory. The other witness, Professor Hennigson, claims that in his evidence to the appeal court he said that although Dr. Clift's conclusion was not absolute or irrefutable there was some evidence for it. That is a very different matter from its having no scientific validity.
Those important statements by people involved cast doubts upon the validity of the condemnation of Dr. Clift by Lord Justice-General Emslie, who for his summing-up relied on his own notes. The doubt should easily be resolved by the study of the transcript of the hearing. But incredibly that cannot be done because there is no transcript. There are only shorthand notes of this appeal. The Solicitor-General for Scotland, to his everlasting shame, said to me today that he has refused to provide a transcript because he is "not persuaded" that the £1,000 cost is justified. Is that not a shocking, disgraceful statement? So much for the price of justice in Britain today.
The judge also condemned Dr. Clift because all the experts agreed that he should have disclosed the fact that Helen Wills was herself a blood group A secretor. Dr. Clift had not done so. The judge suggested that this failure on Dr. Clift's part made it impossible for the defence to discover the blood group and that Dr. Clift was trying to minimise the risk of his opinions being challenged.
Now, startling evidence has emerged. The forensic expert who advised the defence at the original trial says that he was aware that Helen Wills and John Preece were almost certainly both group A secretors. He adds that he was surprised that defence counsel did not ask him to give evidence about this point, on which he was well qualified. Had this been done, he would routinely have checked it with Dr. Clift. So Dr. Clift did not make it impossible for the defence to discover crucial information, as the judge alleged. If Helen Wills' blood group was so crucial that Dr. Clift was discredited for not disclosing it, what blame can be attached to the defence for failing to probe this matter at the original trial?
For his part, Dr. Clift claims that after mentioning the murdered woman's blood group in his first report, which he believed would be available for the defence, he omitted it from the second one for the Scottish court on the advice of the prosecuting counsel. An independent inquiry would look into the reason and responsibility for this omission. The undeniable fact in this confused area is that defence counsel at the original trial did not regard the blood grouping as important because as many as 30 per cent. of the population share the same blood group. Dr. Clift's superior, Dr. Curry, also felt that it was not relevant; yet it was this issue that discredited Dr. Clift. Only an independent inquiry can determine whether or not it should have done so.
The second reason for an independent inquiry, and another area for concern, is the internal Home Office

report of six of Dr. Clift's cases. This report was the essence of the case against him which led him to his enforced early retirement.
Dr. Clift asked a number of distinguished scientists to evaluate this report. They included a director of a forensic establishment, and a past president of the Forensic Science Society. I have read their comments, and they are very impressive. The overall conclusion of all these 11 experts was that Miss Pereira's report deserved more criticism than did Dr. Clift's work. There were some points of criticism of Dr. Clift, but not one of the experts supported the basic condemnation of Dr. Clift's professional integrity.
Typical comments were:
It is perfectly evident that he (Dr. Clift) has received less than justice",
Opinionated criticism of Dr. Clift's work, being concerned only with trivia",
Nothing that lies outside the boundary of professional comment and judgment
and
The report has not shown the impartiality it rightly advocates.
Despite those comments, Dr. Clift was forced to retire by the Home Office. It should be borne in mind that the experts were invited by Dr. Clift to comment on the cases. Nevertheless, they are respectable scientists of integrity. Did the Home Office have undisclosed evidence, or did it simply ride rough-shod over the combined views of these experts? It is highly unsatisfactory for a controversial figure to be forcibly retired, apparently on evidence that has been so effectively questioned. The other side of the affair, if there is one, must be revealed and evaluated. The House, and concerned forensic scientists, have a right to know.
The third area of concern it that is has been alleged that Dr. Clift was the victim of malice. That is a serious charge of which the Minister is no doubt aware, and it must be examined. Dr. Clift worked for the forensic science service from 1953. He was promoted and, as far as is known, he had no adverse annual reports. At the end of July 1977, a new quality control officer arrived at Birmingham where Dr. Clift was working. By 5 September, the new arrival had produced about 15 cases on which to question Dr. Clift. Three days later, on 8 September, Dr. Clift was publicly suspended and his work referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Home Office has said that, "once it became clear" that his work was not of a professionally competent standard, he could not continue as an expert witness. No one can criticise that statement. But how did it take only three days, after 24 years of unblemished service, for professional incompetence to become clear? It was obvious that the publicity involved would finish his public career. It was a sudden and unexpected downfall. Was it justified? The truth is that we simply do not know.
One year later, in October 1978, Dr. Clift was completely cleared by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Dr. Clift's solicitor claims that the Home Office was told that there was no question of criminal proceedings against Dr. Clift. During this time, Dr. Clift's solicitor alleges that there was a whispering campaign against him, and his waste-paper basket was searched to see whether there were any damaging notes. These allegations should be scrutinised, not by the Home Office, which is directly involved, but by an independent inquiry.
The fourth reason and area of concern is the way in which the Home Office disciplinary procedures were apparently used. There were no informal warnings, no formal warnings, no known adverse annual reports, no chance to improve performance, and documents requested by Dr. Clift's solicitors were refused. Perhaps the Home Office believed that his unusual sequence of events was justified by the unusual nature of the case, but that cannot justify the Home Office being the prosecution, judge and jury, all in secret.
I appreciate that my request for an independent inquiry will not be welcomed by the Home Office. Possibly, there are fears by some officials that it may open a Pandora's box. But the Minister has a clear duty to the House of Commons, as well as to his Department.
I hope that the Minister will not hide behind the tired establishment formula that proper authority has already decided. If he claims that the judge should not be open to criticism, and that a retirement board has considered all the facts, and nothing further should be done, he will be failing to answer the case I have made. By reading a facile brief, he would be insulting the House of Commons. I hope that, if he is unable to agree to the independent inquiry now, he will undertake to go back to the Home Office, carefully consider the case that I have presented and let me have a fully considered reply in due course.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): This is a matter of considerable public interest, and I am glad to see other hon. Members in the Chamber, including my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who I know has an interest in at least one of the cases that has been considered by the Court of Appeal recently. I must confess to some surprise at the case which the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ashley) now puts forward for an independent inquiry into the case of Dr. Clift. He has been pressing for such an inquiry for some time, but his grounds for doing so have changed dramatically. Earlier this year, in seeking a debate under Standing Order No. 10, on the Parliamentary Commissioner's report into the Preece case, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the negative response by the Home Office to the discovery. He said:
that one of its leading forensic scientists was professionally incompetent, made unjustified conclusions and gave meaningless evidence."—[Official Report, 26 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 1069.]
Now the right hon. Gentleman has changed his tune. he says that he is not taking sides, that he is not sure whether Dr. Clift has been done an injustice by the Home Office. He now wants an independent inquiry to help him make up his mind about these matters. What a change from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier views about Dr. Clift which I have quoted. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to have it both ways. I cannot pretend to find that at all creditable.
In answering the call for an independent inquiry, it is important to set out some of the background to this affair which, though familiar to the right hon. Gentleman, may not be so well known to the wider audience interested in this debate.
After a long career in the forensic science service Dr. Clift moved to Birmingham forensic science laboratory in June 1976 to take charge of the biology department. In 1977, as a part of new quality controls introduced by the

then controller of the forensic science service, an assistant director was appointed to the Birmingham laboratory. His job was to monitor the performance of scientists at the laboratory by various detailed checks of tests, files and reports. In the course of his examination of one of Dr. Clift's cases he found errors which he drew to Dr. Clift's attention. These errors were corrected, but other cases of Dr. Clift's were also found on examination to be unsatisfactory. These findings were reported to the director of the laboratory and by him to the controller of the service on 1 September 1977.
On the basis of these findings, the controller reported within the Home Office on the substantial prima facie evidence that Dr. Clift had selected results in writing his reports, had reported results that were clearly wrong and had been guilty of grave technical incompetence. Following discussion of these findings with representatives from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Dr. Clift was suspended from duty on full pay on 9 September 1977 pending a police inquiry on behalf of the DPP into his Birmingham cases. Early in the course of his investigation, the police officer reported areas where Dr. Clift had failed to maintain the standards expected of him as a scientist. However, the DPP decided on the basis of the officer's final report in 1978 that there had been no criminal intent and that Dr. Clift should not therefore be prosecuted. However, for the avoidance of doubt that is not the same as saying that Dr. Clift should be treated as a fully competent forensic scientist.
The police officer was assisted in his inquiry by Miss Pereira, an experienced biologist. Miss Pereira was then director of the Aldermaston forensic science laboratory. She is now controller of the forensic science service. She had the thankless task of investigating the conduct of a colleague, and she came to the conclusion, after a careful and painstaking inquiry, that Dr. Clift's conduct in a number of cases was not acceptable, and fell below the standards to be expected of an expert witness. She reported those conclusions honestly and fairly, giving examples of poor quality work such as conclusions based on flimsy evidence, failure to disclose full facts, risky decisions, unsound and invalid conclusions, ambiguous reports and other indications of incompetence. Miss Pereira had no axe to grind against Dr. Clift, and was concerned only for the standards of the forensic science service. Her conclusions have subsequently been criticised by Dr. Clift and his supporters. I want to place it on record that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have the fullest confidence in Miss Pereira's professional judgment and integrity, and have no reason to doubt that the conclusions she reached were the right ones.
Following Dr. Clift's suspension from duty in September 1977, three convicted prisoners petitioned the Home Office to re-open their cases. Two of these cases were referred to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the conviction of one of the two prisoners along with those of two other men convicted with him of robbery and burglary mainly on the evidence given by Dr. Clift.

Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mellor: No. There is not sufficient time.
The setting aside of these convictions, among other things, was used by solicitors in support of an application to the Secretary of State for Scotland to refer the case of


Mr. John Preece for review by the High Court. Eventually on 17 February 1981, the case was referred to the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland.
The decision of the High Court, allowing the appeal and quashing the conviction, was delivered by the Lord Justice-General on 19 June 1981. The court dealt very fully with the question of the serological evidence given at the original trial and heard expert evidence from a number of outstanding forensic scientists; perhaps, it was suggested, the most impressive body of such experts ever assembled in one court. After considering that evidence the judge concluded that
Dr. Clift was, in relation to the evidence which he gave at the trial of the secretor status of the semen in the mixed stains, discredited as a scientist.
Furthermore,
that his testimony upon this very important chapter of the case fell far below the standards…normally to be expected and normally displayed by such a witness.
Finally,
that no reasonable jury would have convicted once it had become clear upon a consideration of the serological chapter of his evidence that Dr. Clift was discredited not only as a scientist but as a witness upon the accuracy, fairness and objectivity of whose evidence reliance could be placed.
On 26 January, in reply to a question from the right hon. Member, my right hon. and learned Friend announced the results of the review of cases in which Dr. Clift gave evidence and his decision that it would be right for him to refer 16 of them to the Court of Appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The basis upon which that decision had been taken was made perfectly clear. The cases were those in which, if the evidence given by Dr. Clift at trial was erroneous or false—and my right hon. and learned Friend made no assumption on that point—the convictions might reasonably have been regarded as open to question. It was accepted at the time that the individual cases might in themselves have not warranted reference to the Court of Appeal, and that Dr. Clift's evidence was by no means the only evidence against all the accused persons, but it was felt right that they should have the benefit of any doubt about their convictions and that the Court of Appeal should be asked for its independent and authoritative determination in each case.
Three of the convicted persons indicated that they did not want their cases to be referred and their wishes in the matter have been respected. Efforts to trace two other defendants are continuing. In three of the 11 cases referred to the Court of Appeal earlier this year the appeals were subsequently abandoned by the individuals concerned.

Mr. Ashley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mellor: I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. He exceeded his time.

Mr. Ashley: This is a shocking speech.

Mr. Mellor: Of the remaining eight cases, there were three in which the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and five in which it dismissed the appeals. In none of the cases referred to the Court of Appeal has the court questioned the earlier conclusions reached about Dr. Clift's competence.
I now come to Dr. Clift's compulsory early retirement. In his case the normal procedures for civil servants—

which take some considerable time to complete—could not be used because his professional weaknesses, when they came to light, discredited him as an expert witness able to give evidence to courts. This is the chief function of a forensic scientist. It was not possible for him to continue in his existing work and there was no other work in the Home Office to which he could be transferred. As I have said, his weaknesses came to light as soon as revised quality assurance arrangements were introduced. The weaknesses had not been suspected previously because it had been assumed that an officer of his standing would be scientifically competent and that it was unnecessary to check the integrity of his work.
Although the retirement procedure used in Clift's case was unusual, it was inevitable because the normal procedure was impracticable. It was agreed between the Department and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, the union representing Dr. Clift, that six specimen cases would be examined in detail to show the Department's objections to Dr. Clift's work, that he would offer his defence and, if this was not accepted, a retirement board would be asked to consider the case for his early retirement.
That procedure was followed. Dr. Clift was given access to all papers, records and statements relevant to the cases under review. The board, consisting of two assistant secretaries who had had no contact with Dr. Clift and two scientists not employed by the Home Office, considered these six cases and concluded that his work was seriously inadequate and unanimously recommended his early retirement. Dr. Clift and his solicitor were given every opportunity to put their case to the board and were invited to appear before it, but they did not accept this invitation. Dr. Clift then appealed to the Civil Service Appeal Board against his retirement. In an unusually long hearing, the board reviewed the procedures that had been used, the case against Dr. Clift and the Department's decision and concluded that the Home Office had acted fairly and that Dr. Clift had not been unfairly dismissed.
Dr. Clift therefore had ample opportunity to present his case against compulsory retirement. Nothing that has happened since then has led the Home Office to conclude that its decision was wrong, or unfair to Dr. Clift. His conduct was carefully examined before he was retired. In all the subsequent proceedings which have flowed from the Clift affair none of the responsible bodies concerned—the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Civil Service Appeal Board, the Court of Appeal—has questioned the conclusion reached about Dr. Clift's competence. It is true that Dr. Clift and some of his friends have mounted a campaign to vindicate him, but no new evidence has been produced, and indeed much of what has been said tends only to confirm the correctness of the decision that Dr. Clift was not acceptable as an expert witness. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has lately lent his name to that campaign. He seems to think that he can act as counsel for the prosecution and the defence in the same case. I and many others do not find that a particularly edifying spectacle.
To sum up, my argument comes to this. In 1981 the High Court of the Judiciary in Scotland delivered a broadside against Dr. Clift of almost unprecedented ferocity. It amounted not merely to a denunciation of his competence in that case, but called into question his standing as a reliable witness in any case.
Faced with that, it has always seemed to me and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that it was necessary to trawl through those cases of which details were available and where the issue of guilt was contested. As a result, 129 cases were examined in detail and as we know 16 were identified as ones which should be referred to the Court of Appeal.
Those were cases where, in the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend, the evidence of Dr. Clift was of sufficient materiality that if the evidence was unsound, the conviction might reasonably be regarded as open to question.
That is not to say that we felt that all the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory. That is not our job. It is the job of the courts to deal with these matters openly and publicly. It was for us to identify those cases where there was reasonable unease—that is precisely what we did. In deciding to refer those cases my right hon. and learned Friend sought to give the benefit of any doubt to the

convicted person. I should make it clear that it has come as no surprise to me that in a majority of them the Court of Appeal has felt that the convictions were perfectly safe, or the appellants have abandoned their appeals.
But we should have been much criticised had we failed to expose to open view those cases where a contrary view was genuinely possible even if not probable. That is what we have done. It has been a painful exercise for all of us at the Home Office and particularly in the Forensic Science Service. But I am convinced that what we have done in the wake of the Preece decision was both wholly necessary and quite right. These matters have been fully ventilated and appropriate procedures have been followed, as I hope I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the House tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o' clock.